The Tetrarchs, a porphyry statue on Venice's Basilica di San Marco, shows the emperor Diocletian and his three imperial colleagues. To the left, Diocletian and Maximianus, the two Augusti (co-emperors); to the right, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, the two Caesars (deputy emperors). Note the woollen "Pannonian" caps commonly worn (out of combat) by officers in the late army as a result of the pervasive influence of the Danubian officer class; and the sword grips with eagle-head pommels.

The Imperial Roman army of the Principate (30 BC – 284 AD) underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century. Unlike the army of the Principate, the army of the 4th century was heavily dependent on conscription and its soldiers were paid much less than in the 2nd century. Barbarians from outside the empire probably supplied a much larger proportion of the late army's recruits than in the army of the 1st and 2nd centuries, but there is little evidence that this adversely affected the army's performance.

Scholarly estimates of the size of the 4th-century army diverge widely, ranging from ca. 400,000 to over one million effectives (i.e. from roughly the same size as the 2nd-century army to 2 or 3 times larger).[2] This is due to fragmentary evidence, unlike the much better-documented 2nd-century army.

Under the Tetrarchy, military commands were separated from administrative governorships for the first time, in contrast to the Principate, where provincial governors were also commanders-in-chief of all military forces deployed in their provinces.

The main change in structure from the 2nd-century army was the establishment of large escort armies (comitatus praesentales), typically containing 20,000–30,000 top-grade palatini troops, these were normally based near the imperial capitals: (Constantinople in the East, Milan in the West), thus far from the empire's borders. These armies' primary function was to deter usurpers, and they usually campaigned under the personal command of their emperors, the legions were split into smaller units comparable in size to the auxiliary regiments of the Principate. Infantry adopted the more protective equipment of the Principate cavalry.

The role of cavalry in the late army does not appear to have been greatly enhanced as compared with the army of the Principate, the evidence is that cavalry was much the same proportion of overall army numbers as in the 2nd century and that its tactical role and prestige remained similar. However, the cavalry of the Late Roman army was endowed with greater numbers of specialised units, such as extra-heavy shock cavalry (cataphractii and clibanarii) and mounted archers.[3] During the later 4th century, the cavalry acquired a reputation for incompetence and cowardice for their role in three major battles. In contrast, the infantry retained its traditional reputation for excellence.

The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the upgrading of many existing border forts to make them more defensible, as well as the construction of new forts with stronger defenses, the interpretation of this trend has fuelled an ongoing debate whether the army adopted a defence-in-depth strategy or continued the same posture of "forward defence" as in the early Principate. Many elements of the late army's defence posture were similar to those associated with forward defence, such as forward location of forts, frequent cross-border operations, and external buffer-zones of allied barbarian tribes. Whatever the defence strategy, it was apparently less successful in preventing barbarian incursions than in the 1st and 2nd centuries, this may have been due to heavier barbarian pressure, or to the practice of keeping large armies of the best troops in the interior, depriving the border forces of sufficient support.

Much of our evidence for 4th century army unit deployments is contained in a single document, the Notitia Dignitatum, compiled c. 395–420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil. The main deficiency with the Notitia is that it lacks any personnel figures so as to render estimates of army size impossible. Also, it was compiled at the very end of the 4th century; it is thus difficult to reconstruct the position earlier. However, the Notitia remains the central source on the late Army's structure due to the dearth of other evidence,[4] the Notitia also suffers from significant lacunae and numerous errors accumulated from centuries of copying.

The main literary sources for the 4th-century army are the Res Gestae (History) of Ammianus Marcellinus, whose surviving books cover the period 353 to 378. Marcellinus, himself a veteran soldier, is regarded by scholars as a reliable and valuable source, but he largely fails to remedy the deficiencies of the Notitia as regards army and unit strength or units in existence, as he is rarely specific about either. The third major source for the late army is the corpus of imperial decrees published in the East Roman empire in the 5th and 6th centuries: the Theodosian code (438) and the Corpus Iuris Civilis (528–39), these compilations of Roman laws dating from the 4th century contain numerous imperial decrees relating to all aspects of the regulation and administration of the late army.

De re militari, a treatise on Roman military affairs by Vegetius, a late 4th or early 5th-century writer, contains considerable information on the late army, although its focus is on the army of the Republic and Principate. However, Vegetius (who wholly lacked military experience) is often unreliable, for example, he stated that the army abandoned armour and helmets in the later 4th century (offering the absurd explanation that this equipment was too heavy), which is contradicted by sculptural and artistic evidence.[5] In general, it is not safe to accept a statement from Vegetius unless it is corroborated by other evidence.

Scholars of the late army have to contend with a dramatic diminution of the epigraphic record in the 3rd and 4th centuries, compared with the 1st and 2nd centuries. diplomas were no longer issued to retiring auxiliaries after 203 (most likely because almost all were already Roman citizens by then). In addition, there was a huge reduction in the number of tombstones, altars and other dedications by Roman servicemen. Official stamps of military units on building materials (e.g. tiles) are much rarer. But this trend should probably not be seen as indicating a decline in the army's administrative sophistication. Papyrus evidence from Egypt shows that military units continued to keep detailed written records in the 4th century (the vast bulk of which are lost due to organic decomposition). Most likely, the decline in inscriptions is due to changing fashion, in part influenced by the increase in barbarian recruits and the rise of Christianity,[6] the dearth of inscriptions leaves major gaps in our understanding of the late army and renders many conclusions tentative.

The seminal modern study of the late army is contained in The Later Roman Empire, 284-602 (LRE) by the "high priest" of late Roman studies, A.H.M. Jones. Because of its wealth of detail and documentary references, this 1964 publication remains an essential tool for all scholars of the period. However, its primary weakness is its age, for a considerable amount of archaeological work and other relevant scholarship has transpired in the decades since its publication.

The regular army of the Principate was established by the founder–emperor Augustus (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD) and survived until the end of the 3rd century. The regular army consisted of two distinct corps, both being made up of mainly volunteer professionals.

The elite legions were large infantry formations, varying between 25 and 33 in number, of c. 5,500 men each (all infantry save a small cavalry arm of 120) which admitted only Roman citizens.[7] The auxilia consisted of around 400 much smaller units of c. 500 men each (a minority were up to 1,000 strong), which were divided into approximately 100 cavalry alae, 100 infantry cohortes and 200 mixed cavalry/infantry units or cohortes equitatae.[8] Some auxilia regiments were designated sagittariorum, meaning that they specialised in archery, the auxilia thus contained almost all the Roman army's cavalry and archers, as well as (from the late 1st century onwards) approximately the same number of foot soldiers as the legions.[9] The auxilia were mainly recruited from the peregrini: provincial subjects of the empire who did not hold Roman citizenship, but the auxilia also admitted Roman citizens and possibly barbari, the Roman term for peoples living outside the empire's borders.[10] At this time both legions and auxilia were almost all based in frontier provinces,[11] the only substantial military force at the immediate disposal of the emperor was the elite Praetorian Guard of c. 10,000 men which was based in Rome.[12]

The senior officers of the army were, until the 3rd century, mainly from the Italian aristocracy, this was divided into two orders, the senatorial order (ordo senatorius), consisting of the c. 600 sitting members of the Roman Senate and their sons and grandsons, and the more numerous (several thousand-strong) equites or "knights".

Hereditary senators and equites combined military service with civilian posts, a career path known as the cursus honorum, typically starting with a period of junior administrative posts in Rome, followed by 5–10 years in the military and a final period of senior positions in either the provinces or Rome.[13] This tiny, tightly-knit ruling oligarchy of under 10,000 men monopolised political, military and economic power in an empire of c. 80 million inhabitants and achieved a remarkable degree of political stability. During the first 200 years of its existence (30 BC – 180 AD), the empire suffered only one major episode of civil strife (the Civil War of 68–9). Otherwise, usurpation attempts by provincial governors were few and swiftly suppressed.

As regards the military, members of the senatorial order (senatorii) exclusively filled the following posts:

(a) legatus Augusti pro praetore (provincial governor of a border province, who was commander-in-chief of the military forces deployed there as well as heading the civil administration)

By the late 1st century, a distinct equestrian group, non-Italian and military in character, became established, this was a result of the established custom whereby the emperor elevated the primuspilus (chief centurion) of each legion to equestrian rank on completion of his year in office. This resulted in some 30 career soldiers, mostly non-Italian and risen from the ranks, joining the aristocracy each year.[16] Far less wealthy than their Italian counterparts, many such equites belonged to families that provided career soldiers for generations. Prominent among them were Romanised Illyrians, the descendants of the Illyrian-speaking tribes that inhabited the Roman provinces of Pannonia (W Hungary/Croatia/Slovenia), Dalmatia (Croatia/Bosnia) and Moesia Superior (Serbia), together with the neighbouring Thracians of Moesia Inferior (N Bulgaria) and Macedonia provinces. From the time of Domitian (ruled 81–96), when over half the Roman army was deployed in the Danubian regions, the Illyrian and Thracian provinces became the most important recruiting ground of the auxilia and later the legions.[17]

Reenactor wearing the typical equipment of a late 3rd-century foot soldier. The helmet is a Niederbieber type, with cross-pattern reinforcing ridges on the top of the bowl, and cheek-guards which can be fastened together, the sword is a spatha (median blade length 900 mm/36 inches), used by the cavalry only in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This soldier carries a spiculum, a heavy pilum-type javelin. Note the chain mail (lorica hamata) shirt and oval shield. Clothing consisted of a long-sleeved tunic, trousers and boots, the equipment of a 4th-century infantryman was very similar to the 3rd century, save that the spiculum was usually replaced by a heavy thrusting-spear (hasta) and the helmet was predominantly of the "Intercisa type".[18]

Fresco from the synagogue in the Roman fortified frontier city of Dura Europos dating to c. 250 AD. The centre shows unarmoured light cavalry charging with lances, the foreground and background show infantry fighting with spathae (long-bladed swords); they are equipped with knee-length scale armours, some with full-length sleeves.

The seminal development for the army in the early 3rd century was the Constitutio Antoniniana (Antonine Decree) of 212, issued by Emperor Caracalla (ruled 211–18), this granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, ending the second-class status of the peregrini.[19] This had the effect of breaking down the distinction between the citizen legions and the auxiliary regiments; in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the legions were the symbol (and guarantors) of the dominance of the Italian "master nation" over its subject peoples. In the 3rd century, they were no longer socially superior to their auxiliary counterparts (although they may have retained their elite status in military terms) and the legions' special armour and equipment (e.g. the lorica segmentata) was phased out.[20]

The traditional alternation between senior civilian and military posts fell into disuse in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as the Italian hereditary aristocracy was progressively replaced in the senior echelons of the army by the primipilares (former chief centurions);[21] in the 3rd century, only 10% of auxiliary prefects whose origins are known were Italian equestrians, compared to the majority in the previous two centuries.[22] At the same time, equestrians increasingly replaced the senatorial order in the top commands. Septimius Severus (ruled 197–211) placed equestrian primipilares in command of the three new legions he raised and Gallienus (260–68) did the same for all the other legions, giving them the title praefectus pro legato ("prefect acting as legate").[23][24] The rise of the primipilares may have provided the army with more professional leadership, but it increased military rebellions by ambitious generals, the 3rd century saw numerous coups d'état and civil wars. Few 3rd-century emperors enjoyed long reigns or died of natural causes.[25]

Emperors responded to the increased insecurity with a steady build-up of the forces at their immediate disposal, these became known as the comitatus ("escort", from which derives the English word "committee"). To the Praetorian Guard's 10,000 men, Septimius Severus added the legion II Parthica. Based at Albano Laziale near Rome, it was the first legion to be stationed in Italy since Augustus, he doubled the size of the imperial escort cavalry, the equites singulares Augusti, to 2,000 by drawing select detachments from alae on the borders.[26] His comitatus thus numbered some 17,000 men, equivalent to 31 infantry cohortes and 11 alae of cavalry.[27] The trend for the emperor to gather round his person ever greater forces reached its peak in the 4th century under Constantine I the Great (ruled 312–37) whose comitatus may have reached 100,000 men, perhaps a quarter of the army's total effective strength.[28]

The rule of Gallienus saw the appointment of a senior officer, with the title of dux (plural form: duces, the origin of the medieval noble rank of duke), to command all the comitatus cavalry. This force included equites promoti (cavalry contingents detached from the legions), plus Illyrian light cavalry (equites Dalmatarum) and allied barbarian cavalry (equites foederati).[24] Under Constantine I, the head of the comitatus cavalry was given the title of magister equitum ("master of horse"), which in Republican times had been held by the deputy to a Roman dictator.[29] But neither title implies the existence of an independent "cavalry army", as was suggested by some more dated scholars, the cavalry under both officers were integral to mixed infantry and cavalry comitatus, with the infantry remaining the predominant element.[27]

The 3rd century saw a progressive reduction in the size of the legions and even some auxiliary units. Legions were broken up into smaller units, as evidenced by the shrinkage and eventual abandonment of their traditional large bases, documented for example in Britain;[30] in addition, from the 2nd century onwards, the separation of some detachments from their parent units became permanent in some cases, establishing new unit types, e.g. the vexillatio equitum Illyricorum based in Dacia in the early 2nd century[31] and the equites promoti[24] and numerus Hnaufridi in Britain.[32] This led to the proliferation of unit types in the 4th century, generally of smaller size than those of the Principate, for example, in the 2nd century, a vexillatio (from vexillum = "standard") was any detachment from a legion or auxiliary regiment, either cavalry or infantry. In the 4th century, it denoted an elite cavalry regiment.[33]

From the 3rd century are the first records of a small number of regular units bearing the names of barbarian tribes (as opposed to peregrini tribal names), these were foederati (allied troops under a military obligation to Rome) converted into regular units, a trend that was to accelerate in the 4th century.[34] The ala I Sarmatarum, based in Britain, was probably composed of some of the 5,500 captured Sarmatian horsemen sent to garrison Hadrian's Wall by emperor Marcus Aurelius in c. 175.[35] There is no evidence of irregular barbarian units becoming part of the regular army of the Principate until the 3rd century.[36]

The mid-3rd century saw the empire plunged into a military and economic crisis which almost resulted in its disintegration, it consisted of a series of military catastrophes in 251–271 when Gaul, the Alpine regions and Italy, the Balkans and the East were overrun by Alamanni, Sarmatians, Goths and Persians.[37] At the same time, the Roman army was struggling with the effects of a devastating pandemic, now thought to have been smallpox, the Plague of Cyprian which began in 251 and was still raging in 270, when it claimed the life of Emperor Claudius II Gothicus (268–70).[38] The evidence for the earlier Antonine pandemic of the late 2nd century, probably also smallpox, indicates a mortality of 15–30% in the empire as a whole.[39] Zosimus describes the Cyprianic outbreak as even worse,[40] the armies and, by extension, the frontier provinces where they were based (and mainly recruited), would likely have suffered deaths at the top end of the range, due to their close concentration of individuals and frequent movements across the empire.[41]

The 3rd-century crisis started a chain-reaction of socio-economic effects that proved decisive for the development of the late army, the combination of barbarian devastation and reduced tax-base due to plague bankrupted the imperial government, which resorted to issuing ever more debased coin e.g. the antoninianus, the silver coin used to pay the troops in this period, lost 95% of its silver content between its launch in 215 and its demise in the 260s. Thus 20 times more money could be distributed with the same amount of precious metal,[42] this led to rampant price inflation: for example, the price of wheat under Diocletian was 67 times the typical price under the Principate.[43] The monetary economy collapsed and the army was obliged to rely on unpaid food levies to obtain supplies.[44] Food levies were raised without regard to fairness, ruining the border provinces where the military was mainly based.[45] Soldiers' salaries became worthless, which reduced the army's recruits to a subsistence-level existence,[46] this in turn discouraged volunteers and forced the government to rely on conscription[47] and large-scale recruitment of barbarians into the regular army because of the shortfalls caused by the plague. By the mid-4th century, barbarian-born men probably accounted for about a quarter of all recruits (and over a third in elite regiments), likely a far higher share than in the 1st and 2nd centuries.[48]

The Aurelian Walls of Rome, built by Aurelian in 270–5. Rome's first new wall since the construction of the Servian Wall after the Gauls sacked Rome 650 years earlier, they symbolised the pervasive insecurity of the 3rd-century empire. Original height: 8m (25 ft). Doubled in 410 to 16m (52 ft) after second sack of Rome in 410. Both walls and towers were originally crenellated, but this has survived only in small sections. Most of the 19km circuit still stands today

By the 3rd century, Romanised Illyrians and Thracians, mostly primipilares and their descendants, came to dominate the army's senior officer echelons.[49] Finally, the Danubian officer-class seized control of the state itself; in 268, the emperor Gallienus (ruled 260–68) was overthrown by a coup d'état organised by a clique of Danubian senior officers, including his successors Claudius II Gothicus and Aurelian (270–75).[50] They and their successors Probus (276–82) and Diocletian (ruled 284–305) and his colleagues in the Tetrarchy formed a sort of self-perpetuating military junta of Danubian officers who were born in the same provinces (several in the same city, Sirmium, a major legionary base in Moesia Superior) and/or had served in the same regiments.[17]

The Junta reversed the military disasters of 251–71 with a string of victories, most notably the defeat at Naissus of a vast Gothic army by Claudius II, which was so crushing that the Goths did not seriously threaten the empire again until a century later at Adrianople (378).[51]

The Danubian emperors were especially concerned with the depopulation of the border provinces due to plague and barbarian invasions during the Crisis, the problem was especially acute in their own Danubian home provinces, where much arable land had fallen out of cultivation through lack of manpower.[52] The depopulation was thus a serious threat to army recruitment and supply; in response, the Danubian Junta pursued an aggressive policy of resettling defeated barbarian tribesmen on imperial territory on a massive scale. Aurelian moved a large number of Carpi to Pannonia in 272.[53] (In addition, by 275 he evacuated the province of Dacia, removing the entire provincial population to Moesia, an act largely motivated by the same problem).[54] His successor Probus is recorded as transferring 100,000 Bastarnae to Moesia in 279/80 and later equivalent numbers of Gepids, Goths and Sarmatians.[55] Diocletian continued the policy, transferring in 297 huge numbers of Bastarnae, Sarmatians and Carpi (the entire latter tribe, according to Victor),[53][56] although the precise terms under which these people were settled in the empire are unknown (and may have varied), the common feature was the grant of land in return for an obligation of military service much heavier than the normal conscription quota. The policy had the triple benefit, from the Roman government's point of view, of weakening the hostile tribe, repopulating the plague-ravaged frontier provinces (and bringing their abandoned fields back into cultivation) and providing a pool of first-rate recruits for the army, but it could also be popular with the barbarian prisoners, who were often delighted by the prospect of a land grant within the empire. In the 4th century, such communities were known as laeti.[34]

The Danubian emperors ruled the empire for over a century, until 379. Indeed, until 363, power was held by descendants of one of the original Junta members. Constantine I' s father, Constantius Chlorus, was a Caesar (deputy emperor) in Diocletian's Tetrarchy.[57] Constantine's grandson Julian ruled until 363, these emperors restored the army to its former strength and effectiveness, but were solely concerned with the needs and interests of the military. They were also divorced from the wealthy Roman senatorial families that dominated the Senate and owned much of the empire's land, this in turn bred a feeling of alienation from the army among the Roman aristocracy which in the later 4th century began to resist the military's exorbitant demands for recruits and supplies.[58]

The emperor Diocletian (ruled 284–305), who launched wide-ranging reforms of the Roman army and government. Bronze follis coin

Diocletian is widely recognised as the greatest of the Illyrian emperors. Diocletian's wide-ranging administrative, economic and military reforms were aimed at providing the military with adequate manpower, supplies and military infrastructure;[59] in the words of one historian, "Diocletian ... turned the entire empire into a regimented logistic base" (to supply the army).[60]

Diocletian's administrative reforms had the twin aims of ensuring political stability and providing the bureaucratic infrastructure needed to raise the recruits and supplies needed by the army, at the top, Diocletian instituted the Tetrarchy. This divided the empire into two halves, East and West, each to be ruled by an Augustus (emperor), each Augustus would in turn appoint a deputy called a Caesar, who would act both as his ruling partner (each Caesar was assigned a quarter of the empire) and designated successor. This four-man team would thus have the flexibility to deal with multiple and simultaneous challenges as well as providing for a legitimate succession,[61] the latter failed in its central aim, to prevent the disastrous civil wars caused by the multiple usurpations of the 3rd century. Indeed, the situation may have been made worse, by providing each pretender with a substantial comitatus to enforce his claim. Diocletian himself lived (in retirement) to see his successors fight each other for power, but the division of the empire into Eastern and Western halves, recognising both geographical and cultural realities, proved enduring: it was mostly retained during the 4th century and became permanent after 395.

Diocletian reformed the provincial administration, establishing a three-tiered provincial hierarchy, in place of the previous single-tier structure, the original 42 provinces of the Principate were almost tripled in number to c. 120.[citation needed] These were grouped into 12 divisions called dioceses, each under a vicarius, in turn grouped into 4 praetorian prefectures, to correspond to the areas of command assigned to the four Tetrarchs, who were each assisted by a chief-of-staff called a praefectus praetorio (not be confused with the commanders of the Praetorian Guard, who held the same title). The aim of this fragmentation of provincial administration was probably to reduce the possibility of military rebellion by governors (by reducing the forces they each controlled).[62]

Also to this end, and to provide more professional military leadership, Diocletian separated military from civil command at the lowest, provincial level. Governors of provinces on the frontiers were stripped of command of the troops stationed there in favour of purely military officers called duces limitis ("border commanders"), some 20 duces may have been created under Diocletian.[52] Most duces were given command of forces in a single province, but a few controlled more than one province e.g. the dux Pannoniae I et Norici.[63] However, at higher echelons, military and administrative command remained united in the vicarii and praefecti praetorio;[62] in addition, Diocletian completed the exclusion of the senatorial class, still dominated by the Italian aristocracy, from all senior military commands and from all top administrative posts except in Italy.[64]

To ensure the army received sufficient recruits, Diocletian appears to have instituted systematic annual conscription of Roman citizens for the first time since the days of the Roman Republic; in addition, he was probably responsible for the decree, first recorded in 313, compelling the sons of serving soldiers and veterans to enlist.[47]

Under Diocletian, the number of legions, and probably of other units, more than doubled,[65] but it is unlikely that overall army size increased nearly as much, since unit strengths appear to have been reduced, in some cases drastically e.g. new legions raised by Diocletian appear to have numbered just 1,000 men, compared to the establishment of c. 5,500 in the Principate i.e. the new legions may have increased overall legionary numbers by only c. 15%.[66][67] Even so, scholars generally agree that Diocletian increased army numbers substantially, by at least 33%.[68]

Diocletian's primary concern was to place the provision of food supplies to the army on a rational and sustainable basis. To this end, the emperor put an end to the arbitrary exaction of food levies (indictiones) for the army, whose burden fell mainly on border provinces and which had ruined them economically, he instituted a system of regular annual indictiones ("tax levies") with the tax demanded set in advance for 5 years and related to the amount of cultivated land in each province, backed by a thorough empire-wide census of land, peasants and livestock.[69] To deal with the problem of rural depopulation in some areas (and consequent loss of food production), he decreed that peasants, who had always been free to leave their land during the Principate, must never leave the locality in which they were registered by the census (legal term is 'origo'), this measure had the effect of legally tying tenant farmers (coloni) and their descendants to their landlords' estates.[70]

In parallel with restoring the size of the army, Diocletian's efforts and resources were focused on a massive upgrading of the defensive infrastructure along all the empire's borders, including new forts and strategic military roads.[71]

The emperor Constantine I (ruled 312–37), who established the first large-scale comitatus (imperial escort army) and divided the army into escort army (comitatenses) and border (limitanei) troops, giving the late Roman army the structure described in the Notitia Dignitatum. Bust in Musei Capitolini, Rome

After defeating Maxentius in 312, Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard, ending the latter's 300-year existence,[72] although the instant reason was the Guard's support for his rival Maxentius, a force based in Rome had also become obsolete since emperors now rarely resided there. The imperial escort role of the Guard's cavalry, the equites singulares Augusti, was now fulfilled by the scholae, these elite cavalry regiments existed by the time of Constantine and may have been founded by Diocletian.[73]

Constantine expanded his comitatus into a major and permanent force, this was achieved by the addition of units withdrawn from the frontier provinces and by creating new units: more cavalry vexillationes and new-style infantry units called auxilia. The expanded comitatus was now placed under the command of two new officers, a magister peditum to command the infantry and magister equitum for cavalry. Comitatus troops were now formally denoted comitatenses to distinguish them from the frontier forces (limitanei).[62] The size of the Constantinian comitatus is uncertain, but Constantine mobilised 98,000 troops for his war against Maxentius, according to Zosimus.[28] It is likely that most of these were retained for his comitatus,[29] this represented about a quarter of the total regular forces, if one accepts that the Constantinian army numbered around 400,000.[74] The rationale for such a large comitatus has been debated among scholars. A traditional view sees the comitatus as a strategic reserve which could be deployed against major barbarian invasions that succeeded in penetrating deep into the empire or as the core of large expeditionary forces sent across the borders, but more recent scholarship has viewed its primary function as insurance against potential usurpers.[27] (See Strategy of the Late Roman army below).

Constantine I completed the separation of military commands from the administrative structure, the vicarii and praefecti praetorio lost their field commands and became purely administrative officials. However, they retained a central role in military affairs, as they remained responsible for military recruitment, pay and, above all, supply,[75] it is unclear whether the duces on the border now reported direct to the emperor, or to one of the two magistri of the comitatus.

In addition, Constantine appears to have reorganised the border forces along the Danube, replacing the old-style alae and cohortes with new units of cunei (cavalry) and auxilia (infantry) respectively.[62] It is unclear how the new-style units differed from the old-style ones, but those stationed on the border (as opposed to those in the comitatus) may have been smaller, perhaps half the size;[76] in sectors other than the Danube, old-style auxiliary regiments survived.[77]

The 5th-century historian Zosimus strongly criticised the establishment of the large comitatus, accusing Constantine of wrecking his predecessor Diocletian's work of strengthening the border defences: "By the foresight of Diocletian, the frontiers of the Roman empire were everywhere studded with cities and forts and towers... and the whole army was stationed along them, so it was impossible for the barbarians to break through... But Constantine ruined this defensive system by withdrawing the majority of the troops from the frontiers and stationing them in cities which did not require protection."[78] Zosimus' critique is probably excessive, both because the comitatus already existed in Diocletian's time and because some new regiments were raised by Constantine for his expanded comitatus, as well as incorporating existing units.[79] Nevertheless, the majority of his comitatus was drawn from existing frontier units,[66] this drawdown of large numbers of the best units inevitably increased the risk of successful large-scale barbarian breaches of the frontier defences.[80]

On Constantine's death in 337, his three sons Constantine II, Constans and Constantius II, divided the empire between them, ruling the West (Gaul, Britain and Spain), the Centre (Italy, Africa and the Balkans), and the East respectively. They also each received a share of their father's comitatus. By 353, when only Constantius survived, it appears that the 3 comitatus had become permanently based in these regions, one each in Gaul, Illyricum and the East. By the 360s, the border duces reported to their regional comitatus commander.[72] However, in addition to the regional comitatus, Constantius retained a force that accompanied him everywhere, which was from then called a comitatus praesentalis (imperial escort army),[81] the three regional armies became steadily more numerous until, by the time of the Notitia (c. 400), there were 6 in the West and 3 in the East.[62] These corresponded to the border dioceses of, in the West: Britannia, Tres Galliae, Illyricum (West), Africa and Hispaniae; and in the East: Illyricum (East), Thraciae and Oriens, respectively. Thus, the regional comitatus commander had become the military counterpart of the diocesan administrative head, the vicarius, in control of all military forces in the diocese, including the duces.[1][82] At this point, therefore, the parallel military/civil administrative structure may be summarised as follows:

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE IN LATE ROMAN EMPIRE (c. 395)

Level

Military
commander

Civil
administrator

Province

Dux limitis

Corrector

Diocese

Magister militum (East)/
Comes rei militaris (West)

Vicarius

Praetorian
prefecture

Augustus/Caesar

Praefectus praetorio

The evolution of regional comitatus was a partial reversal of Constantine's policy and, in effect, a vindication of Zosimus' critique that the limitanei had been left with insufficient support.[83]

Despite the proliferation of regional comitatus, the imperial escort armies remained in existence, and in the period of the Notitia (c. 400) three comitatus praesentales, each 20–30,000 strong, still contained a total of c. 75,000 men.[84] If one accepts that the army at the time numbered about 350,000 men, the escort armies still contained 20–25% of the total effectives. Regiments which remained with the escort armies were, not later than 365, denoted palatini (lit. "of the palace", from palatium), a higher grade of comitatenses.[81] Regiments were now classified in four grades, which denoted quality, prestige and pay, these were, in descending order, scholares, palatini, comitatenses and limitanei.[85]

Because of fairly detailed evidence, there is broad scholarly consensus among modern scholars regarding the size of the Roman Army in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. However, this consensus breaks down regarding the size of the Army in the 4th century. Lack of evidence about unit-strengths has resulted in widely divergent estimates of the Late Army's strength, ranging from c. 400,000 (much the same as in the 2nd century) to well in excess of one million. However, mainstream scholarship is divided between a "low count" of c. 400,000 and a higher count of c. 600,000.[citation needed]

The traditional view of scholars is that the 4th-century army was much larger than the 2nd-century army, in the region of double the size, the late 6th-century writer Agathias, gives a global total of 645,000 effectives for the army "in the old days", presumed to mean at its peak under Constantine I.[86] This figure probably includes fleets, leaving a total of c. 600,000 for the army alone. Figures in Zosimus for the armies of contending emperors (including Constantine's) in 312 add up to a similar total of 581,000 soldiers. A.H.M. Jones' Later Roman Empire (1964), which contains the fundamental study of the late Roman army, calculated a similar total of 600,000 (exc. fleets) by applying his own estimates of unit-strengths to the units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum.[87]

However, Jones' figure of 600,000 is based on assumptions about limitanei unit strengths which may be too high. Jones calculated unit-strengths in Egypt under Diocletian using papyrus evidence of unit payrolls, but a rigorous reassessment of that evidence by R. Duncan-Jones concluded that Jones had overestimated unit sizes by 2–6 times,[88] for example, Jones estimated legions on the frontiers at c. 3,000 men and other units at c. 500.[89] But Duncan-Jones' revisions found frontier legions of around 500 men, an ala of just 160 and an equites unit of 80. Even allowing for the possibility that some of these units were detachments from larger units, it is likely that Diocletianic unit-strengths were far lower than earlier.[90]

More recently, Treadgold (1995) has endorsed the "Large Late Army" position in a detailed examination of the Byzantine army's strength (1995). Treadgold argues that John Lydus' figure of 389,704 soldiers represents the army's strength in 285,[91] while Zosimus' figures totalling 581,000 soldiers account for the army in 312.[92] Treadgold estimates that the army's size was roughly constant 235-85, followed by a rapid increase of over 50% between 285-305, and again remained roughly constant 305-95.[93]

But Treadgold's analysis can be criticised on a number of grounds:

The conclusion that the army's size remained constant between 235 and 285 appears implausible, as this period saw the Third Century Crisis, during which the army's recruitment capacity was severely diminished by the impact of the Plague of Cyprian, numerous civil wars and devastating barbarian invasions.

The assumption that John of Lydus' figure of 390,000 for the Diocletian's army refers to the beginning of that emperor's reign is dubious as it would seem more natural for the chronicler to report the army's peak strength under that emperor.

Treadgold's claim that Diocletian increased the army's numbers by over 50% is considered implausible by Heather, who points out that even 33% would have required a Herculean effort.[94]

Treadgold's estimates are based on figures for Constantine's army provided by Zosimus, who is notorious among scholars as an unreliable chronicler,[95][96] both in general and as regards figures in particular: e.g. he reports that 60,000 Alamanni were killed at the Battle of Strasbourg in 357, an absurd inflation of the 6,000 reported by the contemporary and reliable Ammianus Marcellinus.[97]

The traditional view of a much larger 4th century army has fallen out of favour with some historians in more recent times, as existing evidence has been reappraised and new evidence uncovered, the revisionist view is that the 4th-century army was, at its peak, roughly the same size as the 2nd-century one and considerably smaller in the late 4th century.

Agathias' and Zosimus' figures, if they have any validity at all, may represent the official, as opposed to actual, strength of the Constantinian army. In reality, the slim evidence is that late units were often severely under-strength, perhaps only about two-thirds of official,[98] thus Agathias' 600,000 on paper may have been no more than c. 400,000 in reality. The latter figure accords well with the other global figure from ancient sources, by the 6th-century writer John Lydus, of 389,704 (excluding fleets) for the army of Diocletian. Lydus' figure is accorded greater credibility than Agathias' by scholars because of its precision (implying that it was found in an official document) and the fact that it is ascribed to a specific time period.[99]

Excavation evidence from all the imperial borders which suggests that late forts were designed to accommodate much smaller garrisons than their predecessors from the Principate. Where such sites can be identified with forts listed in the Notitia, the implication is that the resident units were also smaller. Examples include the Legio II Herculia, created by Diocletian, which occupied a fort just one-seventh the size of a typical Principate legionary base, implying a strength of c. 750 men. At Abusina on the Danube, the Cohors III Brittonum was housed in a fort only 10% the size of its old Trajanic fort, suggesting that it numbered only around 50 men, the evidence must be treated with caution as identification of archaeological sites with placenames in the Notitia is often tentative and again, the units in question may be detachments (the Notitia frequently shows the same unit in two or three different locations simultaneously). Nevertheless, the weight of the archaeological evidence favours small sizes for frontier units.[100] Archaeological evidence suggests that the army in Britain in ca. 400 just one-third its size in 200 (17,500 effectives versus 55,000).[76]

At the same time, more recent work has suggested that the regular army of the 2nd century was considerably larger than the c. 300,000 traditionally assumed. This is because the 2nd-century auxilia were not just equal in numbers to the legions as in the early 1st century, but some 50% larger,[8] the army of the Principate probably reached a peak of nearly 450,000 (excluding fleets and foederati) at the end of the 2nd century.[101] Furthermore, the evidence is that the actual strength of 2nd-century units was typically much closer to official (c. 85%) than 4th century units.[102]

Estimates of the strength of the Army through the imperial period may be summarised as follows:

The later 4th-century army contained three types of army group: (a) Imperial escort armies (comitatus praesentales), these were ordinarily based near the imperial capitals (Milan in the West, Constantinople in the East), but usually accompanied the emperors on campaign. (b) Diocesan field armies (comitatus). These were based in strategic regions, on or near the frontiers. (c) Border armies (exercitus limitanei).[120]

Types (a) and (b) are both frequently defined as "mobile field armies", this is because, unlike the limitanei units, their operations were not confined to a single province. But their strategic role was quite different, the escort armies' primary role was probably to provide the emperor's ultimate insurance against usurpers: the very existence of such a powerful force would deter many potential rivals, and if it did not, the escort army alone was often sufficient to defeat them.[27] Their secondary role was to accompany the emperor on major campaigns such as a foreign war or to repel a large barbarian invasion,[121] the diocesan comitatus, on the other hand, had the task of supporting the border forces of their diocese in major operations.[122]

High command structure of the East Roman army c. AD 395. Commands and army sizes based on data in the Notitia Dignitatum Orientis.[123] Eastern magistri militum, in command of comitatus armies, reported direct to the emperor. Duces are shown reporting to their diocesan magister militum, as suggested by Jones and Elton. Locations given indicate usual winter quarters in this period.

High command structure of the West Roman army c. 410–425. Commands and army sizes based on data in the Notitia Dignitatum. Reporting relationship between duces and comites as in the East, with duces reporting to senior officer in their diocese (whereas the Notitia places them directly under the magister utriusque militiae).[124] Locations given indicate usual winter quarters in this period.

The eastern section of the Notitia is dated to c. 395, at the death of Theodosius I. At this time, according to the Notitia, in the East there were 2 imperial escort armies (comitatus praesentales), each commanded by a magister militum praesentalis, the highest military rank, who reported direct to the emperor. These contained units of mainly palatini grade; in addition, there were 3 diocesan comitatus, in East Illyricum, Thraciae and Oriens dioceses, consisting mostly of comitatenses-grade troops. Each was commanded by a magister militum, who also reported direct to the emperor.[125]

The western section was completed considerably later than its eastern counterpart, c. 425, after the West had been overrun by Germanic peoples.[128] However, it appears that the western section was several times revised, in the period c. 400-25: e.g. the dispositions for Britain must date from before 410, as that is when it is believed Roman forces withdrew from Britain definitively.[124] This reflects the confusion of the times. Army dispositions of armies and commands were constantly changing to reflect the needs of the moment, the scale of the chaos in this period is illustrated by Heather's analysis of units in the army of the West. Of 181 comitatus regiments listed for 425, only 84 existed before 395; and many regiments in the comitatus were simply upgraded limitanei units, implying the destruction or disbandment of around 76 comitatus regiments during the period 395-425.[129] By 460, the western army had largely disintegrated.

In consequence, the West section of the Notitia does not accurately represent the western army structure as it stood in 395 (for which the eastern structure is probably a better guide).

The western structure differs substantially from the eastern; in the West, after 395, the emperor was no longer in direct command of his diocesan comitatus chiefs, who instead reported to a military generalissimo (the late Roman equivalent to a pre-industrial-era Japanese shogun). This anomalous structure had arisen through the ascendancy of the half–Vandal military strongman Stilicho (395–408), who was appointed by Theodosius I as guardian of his infant son, Honorius, who succeeded him in the West, after Stilicho's death in 408, a succession of weak emperors ensured that this position continued, under Stilicho's successors (especially Aetius and Ricimer), until the dissolution of the Western empire in 476.[130] The generalissimo was generally known as the magister utriusque militiae (abbreviation: MVM, literally "master of both services", i.e. of both cavalry and infantry). This officer was in direct command of the single but large western imperial escort army based near Milan.

Subordinate to the MVM were all the diocesan comitatus commanders in the West: Gaul, Britannia, Illyricum (West), Africa, Tingitania and Hispania; in contrast to their eastern counterparts, who all held magister militum rank, the commanders of the Western regional comitatus were all of the lower comes rei militaris ("military count") rank, save for the magister equitum per Gallias. This was presumably because all but the Gaul comitatus were smaller than the 20–30,000 typically commanded by a magister militum.

According to the Notitia, all but two of the 12 Western duces also reported directly to the MVM and not to their diocesan comes.[124][131] However, this is out of line with the situation in the East and probably does not reflect the situation in 395.

In both East and West, the scholae, the emperors' personal cavalry escort, lay outside the normal military chain of command. According to the Notitia, the tribuni (commanders) of the scholae reported to the magister officiorum, a senior civilian official.[132] However, this was probably for administrative purposes only, on campaign, a tribunus scholae probably reported direct to the emperor himself.[73]

The troops of the field armies and of the border armies had different arrangements for their accommodation, the troops of the field armies were often billeted on the civilian population, while the troops of the border armies had permanent bases.

Most border units were based in forts as were their predecessors, the legions and auxiliary units of the Principate; in many cases they were based in the same forts.[133] Some of the larger limitanei units (legiones and vexillationes) were based in cities, probably in permanent barracks.[134] Because units of limitanei operated in one area, had their own camps, and often recruited from the same area, they tended to maintain better relations with the locals than the comitatenses and palatini, who would often be transferred to other areas, and were often quartered in civilian homes.[135][136]

The units of the field armies, including palatini, comitatenses, and sometimes pseudocomitatenses, were based in cities when not on campaign, and could be based in temporary camps when on campaign. But it seems that did not usually occupy purpose-built accommodation like the city-based limitanei, from the legal evidence, it seems they were normally compulsorily billeted in private houses (hospitalitas).[137] This is because they often wintered in different provinces, the comitatus praesentales accompanied their respective emperors on campaign, while even the regional comitatus would change their winter quarters according to operational requirements. However, in the 5th century, emperors rarely campaigned in person, so the praesentales became more static in their winter bases,[138] the Western comitatus praesentalis normally was based in and around Mediolanum (Milan) and the two Eastern comitatus in the vicinity of Constantinople.[138]

The changes to unit structure in the 4th century were reduction of unit sizes and increase in unit numbers, establishment of new unit types and establishment of a hierarchy of units more complex than the old one of legions and auxilia.[139]

Shield insignia of regiments under the command of the Magister Militum Praesentalis II of the East Roman army c. 395. Page from the Notitia Dignitatum, a medieval copy of a Late Roman register of military commands

The evidence for the strength of late army units is very fragmented and equivocal,[140] the table below gives some recent estimates of unit strength, by unit type and grade:

Much uncertainty remains, especially regarding the size of limitanei regiments, as can be seen by the wide ranges of the size estimates, it is also possible, if not likely, that unit strengths changed over the course of the 4th century. For example, it appears that Valentinian I split about 150 comitatus units with his brother and co-emperor Valens, the resulting units may have been just half the strength of the parent units (unless a major recruitment drive was held to bring them all up to original strength).[140]

Scholae are believed to have numbered c. 500 on the basis of a 6th-century reference.[67]

In the comitatus, there is consensus that vexillationes were c. 500 and legiones c. 1,000 strong. The greatest uncertainty concerns the size of the crack auxilia palatina infantry regiments, originally formed by Constantine, the evidence is contradictory, suggesting that these units could have been either c. 500 or c. 1,000 strong, or somewhere in between.[142][143] If the higher figure were true, then there would be little to distinguish auxilia from legiones, which is the strongest argument in favour of c. 500.

For the size of limitanei units, opinion is divided. Jones and Elton suggest from the scarce and ambiguous literary evidence that border legiones numbered c. 1,000 men and that the other units contained in the region of 500 men each.[89][144] Others draw on papyrus and more recent archaeological evidence to argue that limitanei units probably averaged about half the Jones/Elton strength i.e. c. 500 for legiones and around 250 for other units.[76][145]

Despite existing from the early 4th century, the only full list of scholae available is in the Notitia, which shows the position at the end of the 4th century/early 5th century, at that time, there were 12 scholae, of which 5 were assigned to the Western emperor and 7 to the Eastern. These regiments of imperial escort cavalry would have totalled c. 6,000 men, compared to 2,000 equites singulares Augusti in the late 2nd century.[12] The great majority (10) of the scholae were "conventional" cavalry, armoured in a manner similar to the alae of the Principate, carrying the titles scutarii ("shield-men"), armaturae ("armour" or "harnesses") or gentiles ("natives"). These terms appear to have become purely honorific, although they may originally have denoted special equipment or ethnic composition (gentiles were barbarian tribesmen admitted to the empire on a condition of military service). Only two scholae, both in the East, were specialised units: a schola of clibanarii (cataphracts, or heavily armoured cavalry), and a unit of mounted archers (sagittarii).[146][147] 40 select troops from the scholae, called candidati from their white uniforms, acted as the emperor's personal bodyguards.[73]

In the field armies, cavalry units were known as vexillationes palatini and vex. comitatenses; infantry units as either legiones palatini, auxilia palatini, leg. comitatenses, and pseudocomitatenses.[98][148]Auxilia were only graded as palatini, emphasising their elite status, while the legiones are graded either palatini or comitatenses.[124]

The majority of Roman cavalry regiments in the comitatus (61%) remained of the traditional semi-armoured type, similar in equipment and tactical role to the alae of the Principate and suitable for mêlée combat, these regiments carry a variety of titles: comites, equites scutarii, equites stablesiani or equites promoti. Again, these titles are probably purely traditional, and do not indicate different unit types or functions.[20] 24% of regiments were unarmoured light cavalry, denoted equites Dalmatae, equites Mauri or equites sagittarii (mounted archers), suitable for harassment and pursuit. Mauri light horse had served Rome as auxiliaries since the Second Punic War 500 years before. Equites Dalmatae, on the other hand, seem to have been regiments first raised in the 3rd century. 15% of comitatus cavalry regiments were heavily armoured cataphractarii or clibanarii, which were suitable for the shock charge (all but one such squadrons are listed as comitatus regiments by the Notitia)[149]

Infantry units mostly fought in close order as did their forebears from the Principate. Infantry equipment was broadly similar to that of auxiliaries in the 2nd century, with some modifications (see Equipment, below).[20]

In the limitanei, most types of unit were present. Infantry units include milites, numeri and auxilia as well as old-style legiones and cohortes. Cavalry units include equites, cunei and old-style alae.[144]

The evidence is that units of the comitatenses were believed to be higher quality than of the limitanei, but the difference should not be exaggerated. Suggestions have been made that the limitanei were a part-time militia of local farmers, of poor combat capability,[150] this view is rejected by many modern scholars.[144][151][152] The evidence is that limitanei were full-time professionals,[153] they were charged with combating the incessant small-scale barbarian raids that were the empire's enduring security problem.[154] It is therefore likely that their combat readiness and experience were high, this was demonstrated at the siege of Amida (359) where the besieged frontier legions resisted the Persians with great skill and tenacity.[155] Elton suggests that the lack of mention in the sources of barbarian incursions less than 400-strong implies that such were routinely dealt with by the border forces without the need of assistance from the comitatus.[156]Limitanei regiments often joined the comitatus for specific campaigns, and were sometimes retained by the comitatus long-term with the title of pseudocomitatenses, implying adequate combat capability.[153]

Bas-relief of a Sassanian heavily armoured mounted warrior. He is wearing what is probably a chain-mail face-guard, this is possibly the kind of armour denoted by the Roman term clibanarius, probably meaning "furnace man" in reference to the heat that would build up inside such all-encompassing armour. Note the armoured caparison for the horse, from Taq-e Bostan, Iran

The late Roman army contained a significant number of heavily armoured cavalry called cataphractarii (from the Greek kataphraktos, meaning "covered all over"), they were covered from neck to foot by a combination of scale and/or lamellar armour for the torso and laminated defences for the limbs (see manica), and their horses were often armoured also. Cataphracts carried a long, heavy lance called a contus, c. 3.65 m (12 ft) long, that was held in both hands. Some also carried bows,[158] the central tactic of cataphracts was the shock charge, which aimed to break the enemy line by concentrating overwhelming force on a defined section of it. A type of cataphract called a clibanarius also appears in the 4th-century record, this term may be derived from Greek klibanos (a bread oven) or from a Persian word. It is likely that clibanarius is simply an alternative term to cataphract, or it may have been a special type of cataphract,[20] this type of cavalry had been developed by the Iranian horse-based nomadic tribes of the Eurasian steppes from the 6th century BC onwards: the Scythians and their kinsmen the Sarmatians. The type was adopted by the Parthians in the 1st century BC and later by the Romans, who needed it to counter Parthians in the East and the Sarmatians along the Danube,[159] the first regiment of Roman cataphracts to appear in the archaeological record is the ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum cataphractaria, attested in Pannonia in the early 2nd century.[160] Although Roman cataphracts were not new, they were far more numerous in the late army, with most regiments stationed in the East.[161] However, it should be noted that several of the regiments placed in the Eastern army had Gaulish names, indicating an ultimately Western origin.[162]

Archer units are denoted in the Notitia by the term equites sagittarii (mounted archers) and sagittarii (foot archers, from sagitta = "arrow"). As in the Principate, it is likely that many non-sagittarii regiments also contained some archers. Mounted archers appear to have been exclusively in light cavalry units.[20] Archer units, both foot and mounted, were present in the comitatus;[163] in the border forces, only mounted archers are listed in the Notitia, which may indicate that many limitanei infantry regiments contained their own archers.[164]

A distinctive feature of the late army is the appearance of independent units of artillery, which during the Principate appears to have been integral to the legions. Called ballistarii (from ballista = "catapult"), 7 such units are listed in the Notitia, all but one belonging to the comitatus. But a number are denoted pseudocomitatenses, implying that they originally belonged to the border forces, the purpose of independent artillery units was presumably to permit heavy concentration of firepower, especially useful for sieges. However, it is likely that many ordinary regiments continued to possess integral artillery, especially in the border forces.[165]

The Notitia lists a few units of presumably light infantry with names denoting specialist function: superventores and praeventores ("interceptors") exculcatores ("trackers"), exploratores ("scouts").[166] At the same time, Ammianus describes light-armed troops with various terms: velites, leves armaturae, exculcatores, expediti. It is unclear from the context whether any of these were independent units, specialist sub-units, or indeed just detachments of ordinary troops specially armed for a particular operation,[167] the Notitia evidence implies that, at least in some cases, Ammianus could be referring to independent units.

Bucellarii (the Latin plural of bucellarius; literally "biscuit–eater",[168]Greek: βουκελλάριοι) is a term for professional soldiers in the late Roman and Byzantine Empire, who were not supported directly by the state but rather by an individual, though they also took an oath of obedience to the reigning emperor. The employers of these "household troops" were usually prominent generals or high ranking civilian bureaucrats. Units of these troops were generally quite small, but, especially during the many civil wars, they could grow to number several thousand men; in effect, the bucellarii were small private armies equipped and paid by wealthy and influential people. As such they were quite often better trained and equipped, not to mention motivated, than the regular soldiers of the time. Originating in the late fourth century, they increased in importance until, in the early Byzantine army, they could form major elements of expeditionary armies. Notable employers of bucellarii included the magistri militiaeStilicho and Aetius, and the Praetorian Prefect Rufinus.[169]

Outside the regular army were substantial numbers of allied forces, generally known as foederati (from foedus = "treaty") or symmachi in the East. The latter were forces supplied either by barbarian chiefs under their treaty of alliance with Rome or dediticii,[170] such forces were employed by the Romans throughout imperial history e.g. the battle scenes from Trajan's Column in Rome show that foederati troops played an important part in the Dacian Wars (101–6).[171]

In the 4th century, as during the Principate, these forces were organised into ill-defined units based on a single ethnic group called numeri ("troops", although numerus was also the name of a regular infantry unit),[172] they served alongside the regular army for the duration of particular campaigns or for a specified period. Normally their service would be limited to the region where the tribe lived, but sometimes could be deployed elsewhere,[173] they were commanded by their own leaders. It is unclear whether they used their own weapons and armour or the standard equipment of the Roman army; in the late army, the more useful and long-serving numeri appear to have been absorbed into the regular late army, rapidly becoming indistinguishable from other units.[174]

During the Principate, it appears that most recruits, both legionary and auxiliary, were volunteers (voluntarii). Compulsory conscription (dilectus) was never wholly abandoned, but was generally only used in emergencies or before major campaigns when large numbers of additional troops were required;[175] in marked contrast, the late army relied mainly on compulsion for its recruitment of Roman citizens. Firstly, the sons of serving soldiers or veterans were required by law to enlist. Secondly, a regular annual levy was held based on the indictio (land tax assessment). Depending on the amount of land tax due on his estates, a landowner (or group of landowners) would be required to provide a commensurate number of recruits to the army. Naturally, landowners had a strong incentive to keep their best young men to work on their estates, sending the less fit or reliable for military service. There is also evidence that they tried to cheat the draft by offering the sons of soldiers (who were liable to serve anyway) and vagrants (vagi) to fulfil their quota.[47]

However, conscription was not in practice universal. Firstly, a land-based levy meant recruits were exclusively the sons of peasants, as opposed to townspeople,[47] thus some 20% of the empire's population was excluded.[176] In addition, as during the Principate, slaves were not admissible. Nor were freedmen and persons in certain occupations such as bakers and innkeepers; in addition, provincial officials and curiales (city council members) could not enlist. These rules were relaxed only in emergencies, as during the military crisis of 405–6 (Radagaisus' invasion of Italy and the great barbarian invasion of Gaul).[177] Most importantly, the conscription requirement was often commuted into a cash levy, at a fixed rate per recruit due, this was done for certain provinces, in certain years, although the specific details are largely unknown. It appears from the very slim available evidence that conscription was not applied evenly across provinces but concentrated heavily in the army's traditional recruiting areas of Gaul (including the two Germaniae provinces along the Rhine) and the Danubian provinces, with other regions presumably often commuted. An analysis of the known origins of comitatenses in the period 350–476 shows that in the Western army, the Illyricum and Gaul dioceses together provided 52% of total recruits. Overall, the Danubian regions provided nearly half of the whole army's recruits, despite containing only three of the 12 dioceses,[178] this picture is much in line with the 2nd-century position.[179]

Prospective recruits had to undergo an examination. Recruits had to be 20–25 years of age, a range that was extended to 19–35 in the later 4th century. Recruits had to be physically fit and meet the traditional minimum height requirement of 6 Roman feet (5 ft 10in, 175 cm) until 367, when it was reduced to 5 Roman feet and 3 Roman palms (5 ft 7in, 167 cm).[180]Vegetius hints that in the very late Empire (ca. AD 400) even this height requirement may have been relaxed, for "... if necessity demands, it is right to take account not so much of stature as of strength. Even Homer himself is not wanting as a witness, since he records that Tydeus was small in body but a strong warrior".[181]

Once a recruit was accepted he was 'marked' on the arm, presumably a tattoo or brand, to facilitate recognition if he attempted to desert,[182] the recruit was then issued with an identification disk (which was worn around the neck) and a certificate of enlistment (probatoria). He was then assigned to a unit. A law of 375 required those with superior fitness to be assigned to the comitatenses;[183] in the 4th century, the minimum length of service was 20 years (24 years in some limitanei units).[184] This compares with 25 years in both legions and auxilia during the Principate.

The widespread use of conscription, the compulsory recruitment of soldiers' sons, the relaxation of age and height requirements and the branding of recruits all add up to a picture of an army that had severe difficulties in finding, and retaining, sufficient recruits.[185] Recruitment difficulties are confirmed in the legal code evidence: there are measures to deal with cases of self-mutilation to avoid military service (such as cutting off a thumb), including an extreme decree of 386 requiring such persons to be burnt alive.[184] Desertion was clearly a serious problem, and was probably much worse than in the army of the Principate, since the latter was mainly a volunteer army, this is supported by the fact that the granting of leave of absence (commeatus) was more strictly regulated. While in the 2nd century, a soldier's leave was granted at the discretion of his regimental commander, in the 4th century, leave could only be granted by a far senior officer (dux, comes or magister militum).[186][187] In addition, it appears that comitatus units were typically one-third understrength,[98] the massive disparity between official and actual strength is powerful evidence of recruitment problems. Against this, Elton argues that the late army did not have serious recruitment problems, on the basis of the large numbers of exemptions from conscription that were granted.[188]

Late Roman soldiers, probably barbarians, as depicted (back row) by bas-relief on the base of Theodosius I's obelisk in Constantinople (c. 390). The troops belong to a regiment of palatini as they are here detailed to guard the emperor (left). More than third of soldiers in the palatini were barbarian-born by this time. Note the necklaces with regimental pendants and the long hair, a style imported by barbarian recruits, in contrast to the short hair that was the norm in the Principate

Barbari ("barbarians") was the generic term used by the Romans to denote peoples resident beyond the borders of the empire, and best translates as "foreigners" (it is derived from a Greek word meaning "to babble": a reference to their incomprehensible languages).

Most scholars believe that significant numbers of barbari were recruited throughout the Principate by the auxilia (the legions were closed to non-citizens).[184][189] However, there is little evidence of this before the 3rd century, the scant evidence suggests that the vast majority, if not all, of auxilia were Roman peregrini (second-class citizens) or Roman citizens.[190] In any case, the 4th-century army was probably much more dependent on barbarian recruitment than its 1st/2nd-century predecessor, the evidence for this may be summarised as follows:

The Notitia lists a number of barbarian military settlements in the empire. Known as laeti or gentiles ("natives"), these were an important source of recruits for the army. Groups of Germanic or Sarmatian tribespeople were granted land to settle in the Empire, in return for military service. Most likely each community was under a treaty obligation to supply a specified number of troops to the army each year,[184] the resettlement within the empire of barbarian tribespeople in return for military service was not a new phenomenon in the 4th century: it stretches back to the days of Augustus.[191] But it does appear that the establishment of military settlements was more systematic and on a much larger scale in the 4th century.[192]

The Notitia lists a large number of units with barbarian names. This was probably the result of the transformation of irregular allied units serving under their own native officers (known as socii, or foederati) into regular formations, during the Principate, regular units with barbarian names are not attested until the 3rd century and even then rarely e.g. the ala I Sarmatarum attested in 3rd-century Britain, doubtless an offshoot of the Sarmatian horsemen posted there in 175.[193]

The emergence of significant numbers of senior officers with barbarian names in the regular army, and eventually in the high command itself. In the early 5th century, the Western Roman forces were often controlled by barbarian-born generals or generals with some barbarian ancestry, such as Arbogast, Stilicho and Ricimer.[194]

The adoption by the 4th-century army of barbarian (especially Germanic) dress, customs and culture, suggesting enhanced barbarian influence. For example, Roman army units adopted mock barbarian names e.g. Cornuti = "horned ones", a reference to the German custom of attaching horns to their helmets, and the barritus, a German warcry. Long hair became fashionable, especially in the palatini regiments, where barbarian-born recruits were numerous.[195]

Quantification of the proportion of barbarian-born troops in the 4th-century army is highly speculative. Elton has undertaken the most detailed analysis of the meagre evidence. According to this analysis, about a quarter of the sample of army officers was barbarian-born in the period 350–400. Analysis by decade shows that this proportion did not increase over the period, or indeed in the early 5th century, the latter trend implies that the proportion of barbarians in the lower ranks was not much greater, otherwise the proportion of barbarian officers would have increased over time to reflect that.[196]

If the proportion of barbarians was in the region of 25%, then it is probably much higher than in the 2nd-century regular army. If the same proportion had been recruited into the auxilia of the 2nd-century army, then in excess of 40% of recruits would have been barbarian-born, since the auxilia constituted 60% of the regular land army.[11] There is no evidence that recruitment of barbarians was on such a large scale in the 2nd century.[36] An analysis of named soldiers of non-Roman origin shows that 75% were Germanic: Franks, Alamanni, Saxons, Goths, and Vandals are attested in the Notitia unit names.[197] Other significant sources of recruits were the Sarmatians from the Danubian lands; and Armenians and Iberians from the Caucasus region.[198]

In contrast to Roman recruits, the vast majority of barbarian recruits were probably volunteers, drawn by conditions of service and career prospects that to them probably appeared desirable, in contrast to their living conditions at home. A minority of barbarian recruits were enlisted by compulsion, namely dediticii (barbarians who surrendered to the Roman authorities, often to escape strife with neighbouring tribes) and tribes who were defeated by the Romans, and obliged, as a condition of peace, to undertake to provide a specified number of recruits annually. Barbarians could be recruited directly, as individuals enrolled into regular regiments, or indirectly, as members of irregular foederati units transformed into regular regiments.[199]

At the base of the rank pyramid were the common soldiers: pedes (infantryman) and eques (cavalryman). Unlike his 2nd-century counterpart, the 4th-century soldier's food and equipment was not deducted from his salary (stipendium), but was provided free,[200] this is because the stipendium, paid in debased silver denarii, was under Diocletian worth far less than in the 2nd century. It lost its residual value under Constantine and ceased to be paid regularly in mid-4th century.[201]

The soldier's sole substantial disposable income came from the donativa, or cash bonuses handed out periodically by the emperors, as these were paid in gold solidi (which were never debased), or in pure silver. There was a regular donative of 5 solidi every five years of an Augustus reign (i.e. one solidus p.a.) Also, on the accession of a new Augustus, 5 solidi plus a pound of silver (worth 4 solidi, totaling 9 solidi) were paid. The 12 Augusti that ruled the West between 284 and 395 averaged about nine years per reign, thus the accession donatives would have averaged about 1 solidus p.a. The late soldier's disposable income would thus have averaged at least 2 solidi per annum, it is also possible, but undocumented, that the accession bonus was paid for each Augustus and/or a bonus for each Caesar.[202] The documented income of 2 solidi was only a quarter of the disposable income of a 2nd-century legionary (which was the equivalent of c. 8 solidi).[203] The late soldier's discharge package (which included a small plot of land) was also minuscule compared with a 2nd-century legionary's, worth just a tenth of the latter's.[204][205]

Despite the disparity with the Principate, Jones and Elton argue that 4th-century remuneration was attractive compared to the hard reality of existence at subsistence level that most recruits' peasant families had to endure.[206] Against that has to be set the clear unpopularity of military service.

However, pay would have been much more attractive in higher-grade units, the top of the pay pyramid were the scholae elite cavalry regiments. Next came palatini units, then comitatenses, and finally limitanei. There is little evidence about the pay differentials between grades, but that they were substantial is shown by the example that an actuarius (quartermaster) of a comitatus regiment was paid 50% more than his counterpart in a pseudocomitatensis regiment.[207]

Regimental officer grades in old-style units (legiones, alae and cohortes) remained the same as under the Principate up to and including centurion and decurion. In the new-style units, (vexillationes, auxilia, etc.), ranks with quite different names are attested, seemingly modelled on the titles of local authority bureaucrats.[208] So little is known about these ranks that it is impossible to equate them with the traditional ranks with any certainty. Vegetius states that the ducenarius commanded, as the name implies, 200 men. If so, the centenarius may have been the equivalent of a centurion in the old-style units.[209] Probably the most accurate comparison is by known pay levels:

The table shows that the pay differentials enyjoyed by the senior officers of a 4th-century regiment were much smaller than those of their 2nd-century counterparts, a position in line with the smaller remuneration enjoyed by 4th-century high administrative officials.

The table above indicates the ranks of officers who held a commission (sacra epistula, lit: "solemn letter"), this was presented to the recipient by the emperor in person at a dedicated ceremony.[212]

Detail of a 4th-century mosaic showing a hunting scene. The figures are probably Roman military officers, wearing the typical non-combat uniform (i.e. without armour and helmets, but with shield and spear) of late soldiers. (Throughout the imperial era, soldiers were usually portrayed in non-combat mode).[213] Note the off-white, long-sleeved tunics, the swastika embroidered on the left tunic was a mystical symbol, possibly of Indo-European origin, representing the universe and was commonly used by the Romans as a decorative motif. Note also the military cloak (chlamys) and trousers, the pattern on the shield indicated the bearer's regiment. Note the bands embroidered on the sleeves and shoulders, from Piazza Armerina, Sicily

A significant innovation of the 4th century was the corps of protectores, which contained cadet senior officers, although protectores were supposed to be soldiers who had risen through the ranks by meritorious service, it became a widespread practice to admit to the corps young men from outside the army (often the sons of senior officers). The protectores formed a corps that was both an officer training-school and pool of staff officers available to carry out special tasks for the magistri militum or the emperor, those attached to the emperor were known as protectores domestici and organised in four scholae under a comes domesticorum. After a few years' service in the corps, a protector would normally be granted a commission by the emperor and placed in command of a military regiment.[214]

Regimental commanders were known by one of three possible titles: tribunus (for comitatus regiments plus border cohortes), praefectus (most other limitanei regiments) or praepositus (for milites and some ethnic allied units).[215][216] However, tribunus was used colloquially to denote the commander of any regiment, although most tribuni were appointed from the corps of protectores, a minority, again mainly the sons of high-ranking serving officers, were directly commissioned outsiders.[217] The status of regimental commanders varied enormously depending on the grade of their unit, at the top end, some commanders of scholae were granted the noble title of comes, a practice which became standard after 400.[218]

The comitiva or "Order of Companions (of the emperor)", was an order of nobility established by Constantine I to honour senior administrative and military officials, especially in the imperial entourage, it partly overlapped with the established orders of Senators and of Knights, in that it could be awarded to members of either (or of neither). It was divided into three grades, of which only the first, comes primi ordinis (lit. "Companion of the First Rank", which carried senatorial rank), retained any value beyond AD 450, due to excessive grant. In many cases, the title was granted ex officio, but it could also be purely honorary.[219]

In the military sphere, the title of comes primi ordinis was granted to a group of senior tribuni, these included (1) the commander of the protectores domestici, who by 350 was known as the comes domesticorum;[220] (2) some tribuni of scholae: after c. 400, scholae commanders were routinely granted the title on appointment;[221] (3) the commanders of a brigade of two twinned comitatus regiments were apparently styled comites. (Such twinned regiments would always operate and transfer together e.g. the legions Ioviani and Herculiani);[222] (4) finally, some tribunes without a regimental command (tribuni vacantes), who served as staff-officers to the emperor or to a magister militum, might be granted the title.[221] These officers were not equal in military rank with a comes rei militaris, who was a corps commander (usually of a smaller diocesan comitatus), rather than the commander of only one or two regiments (or none).

The commanders of army corps, i.e. army groups composed of several regiments, were known as (in ascending order of rank): duces limitis, comites rei militaris, and magistri militum. These officers corresponded in rank to generals and field marshals in modern armies.

A Dux (or, rarely, comes) limitis (lit. "Border Leader"), was in command of the troops (limitanei), and fluvial flotillas, deployed in a border province. Until the time of Constantine I, the dux reported to the vicarius of the diocese in which their forces were deployed, after c. 360, the duces generally reported to the commander of the comitatus deployed in their diocese (whether a magister militum or comes).[72] However, they were entitled to correspond directly with the emperor, as various imperial rescripts show. A few border commanders were, exceptionally, styled comes e.g. the comes litoris Saxonici ("Count of the Saxon Shore") in Britain.[223]

A Comes rei militaris (lit. "Companion for Military Affairs") was generally in command of a smaller diocesan comitatus (typically ca. 10,000 strong). By the time of the Notitia, comites were mainly found in the West, because of the fragmentation of the western comitatus into a number of smaller groups. In the East, there were 2 comites rei militaris, in command of Egypt and Isauria. Exceptionally, these men were in command of limitanei regiments only, their title may be due to the fact that they reported, at the time to the Notitia, to the emperor direct (later they reported to the magister militum per Orientem).[124] A comes rei militaris also had command over the border duces in his diocese.

A Magister militum (lit. "Master of Soldiers") commanded the larger diocesan comitatus (normally over 20,000-strong). A magister militum was also in command of the duces in the diocese where his comitatus was deployed.

The highest rank of Magister militum praesentalis (lit. "Master of Soldiers in the Presence [of the Emperor]") was accorded to the commanders of imperial escort armies (typically 20-30,000 strong). The title was equivalent in rank to Magister utriusque militiae ("Master of Both Services"), Magister equitum ("Master of Cavalry") and Magister peditum ("Master of Infantry").

It is unknown what proportion of the corps commanders had risen from the ranks, but it is likely to have been small as most rankers would be nearing retirement age by the time they were given command of a regiment and would be promoted no further;[224] in contrast, directly commissioned protectores and tribuni dominated the higher echelons, as they were usually young men when they started. For such men, promotion to corps command could be swift e.g. the future emperor Theodosius I was a dux at age 28.[225] It was also possible for rungs on the rank-ladder to be skipped. Commanders of scholae, who enjoyed direct access to the emperor, often reached the highest rank of magister militum: e.g. the barbarian-born officer Agilo was promoted direct to magister militum from tribunus of a schola in 360, skipping the dux stage.[221]

Frieze (bottom) showing Constantine I's cavalry driving Maxentius' troops into the River Tiber at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312). The image proves that 4th-century soldiers wore metal body armour (the Maxentian soldiers are wearing either mail or scale, it is unclear which), the Constantinian cavalry is apparently unarmoured, probably because these were units of Illyrian light cavalry (equites Dalmatae) and mounted archers. Detail from the Arch of Constantine, Rome

Detail of bas-relief on base of former Column of Theodosius in Constantinople (Istanbul). Date c. 390. Roman soldiers in action. Note soldier at centre had an Intercisa-style helmet with iron crest (prob. indicating officer rank) and is wearing chain-mail or scale armour, evidence that Vegetius's claim that infantry dropped helmets and armour in the later 4th century is mistaken. Istanbul Archaeological Museum

Late Roman helmet, called the Deurne helmet. It is covered in expensive silver-gilt sheathing and is inscribed to a cavalryman of the equites stablesiani.

The basic equipment of a 4th-century foot soldier was essentially the same as in the 2nd century: metal armour cuirass, metal helmet, shield and sword,[226] some evolution took place during the 3rd century. Trends included the adoption of warmer clothing; the disappearance of distinctive legionary armour and weapons; the adoption by the infantry of equipment used by the cavalry in the earlier period; and the greater use of heavily armoured cavalry called cataphracts.

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, a Roman soldier's clothes consisted of a single-piece, short-sleeved tunic the hem of which reached the knees and special hobnailed sandals (caligae), this attire, which left the arms and legs bare, had evolved in a Mediterranean climate and was not suitable for northern Europe in cold weather. In northern Europe, long-sleeved tunics, trousers (bracae), socks (worn inside the caligae) and laced boots were commonly worn in winter from the 1st century, during the 3rd century, these items of clothing became much more widespread, apparently common in Mediterranean provinces also.[227] However, it is likely that in warmer weather, trousers were dispensed with and caligae worn instead of socks and boots.[228] Late Roman clothing was often highly decorated, with woven or embroidered strips, clavi, circular roundels, orbiculi, or square panels, tabulae, added to tunics and cloaks. These colourful decorative elements usually consisted of geometrical patterns and stylised plant motifs, but could include human or animal figures.[229] A distinctive part of a soldier's costume, though it seems to have also been worn by non-military bureaucrats, was a type of round, brimless hat known as the pannonian cap (pileus pannonicus).[230]

Legionary soldiers of the 1st and 2nd centuries had use of the lorica segmentata, or laminated-strip cuirass, as well as (lorica hamata) and scale armour (lorica squamata). Testing of modern replicas have demonstrated that segmentata was impenetrable to most direct and missile strikes, it was, however, uncomfortable: reenactors have discovered that chafing renders it painful to wear for longer than a few hours at a time, and it was also expensive to produce and difficult to maintain.[231] In the 3rd century, the segmentata appears to have fallen out of use and troops were depicted wearing chain mail or scale, the artistic record shows that most late Roman soldiers wore metal armour, despite Vegetius' statement to the contrary. For example, illustrations in the Notitia Dignitatum show that the army's fabricae (arms factories) were producing mail armour at the end of the 4th century.[232] Actual examples of quite large sections of mail have been recovered, at Trier (with a section of scale), Independenta, and Weiler-La-Tour, within a late 4th-century context.[233] Officers and some soldiers may have worn muscle cuirasses, together with decorative pteruges,[234] the catafractarii and clibanarii cavalry, from limited pictorial evidence and especially from the description of these troops by Ammianus, may have worn specialised forms of armour. In particular their limbs were protected by laminated defences, made up of curved and overlapping metal segments: "Laminarum circuli tenues apti corporis flexibus ambiebant per omnia membra diducti" (Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs).[235] Such laminated defences are attested by a fragment of manica found at Bowes Moor, dating to the late 4th century AD.[236]

In general, Roman cavalry helmets had enhanced protection, in the form of wider cheek-guards and deeper neck-guards, for the sides and back of the head than infantry helmets. Infantry were less vulnerable in those parts due to their tighter formation when fighting,[237] during the 3rd century, infantry helmets tended to adopt the more protective features of Principate cavalry helmets. Cheek-guards could often be fastened together over the chin to protect the face, and covered the ears save for a slit to permit hearing e.g. the "Auxiliary E" type or its Niederbieber variant. Cavalry helmets became even more enclosed e.g. the "Heddernheim" type, which is close to the medieval great helm, but at the cost much reduced vision and hearing.[238]

In the late 3rd century a complete break in Roman helmet design occurred. Previous Roman helmet types, based ultimately on Celtic designs, were replaced by new forms derived from helmets developed in the Sassanid Empire, the new helmet types were characterised by a skull constructed from multiple elements united by a medial ridge, and are referred to as "ridge helmets". They are divided into two sub-groups, the "Intercisa" and "Berkasovo" types,[239] the "Intercisa" design had a two-piece skull, it left the face unobstructed and had ear-holes in the join between the small cheek-guards and bowl to allow good hearing. It was simpler and cheaper to manufacture, and therefore probably by far the most common type, but structurally weaker and therefore offered less effective protection,[240] the "Berkasovo" type was a more sturdy and protective ridge helmet. This type of helmet usually has 4 to 6 skull elements (and the characteristic median ridge), a nasal (nose-guard), a deep brow piece riveted inside the skull elements and large cheekpieces. Unusually the helmet discovered at Burgh Castle, in England, is of the Berkasovo method of construction, but has cheekpieces with earholes. Face-guards of mail or in the form of metal 'anthropomorphic masks' with eye-holes were often added to the helmets of the heaviest forms of cavalry, especially catafractarii or clibanarii.[241][242]

Despite the apparent cheapness of manufacture of their basic components, many surviving examples of Late Roman helmets, including the Intercisa type, show evidence of expensive decoration in the form of silver or silver-gilt sheathing.[243][244] A possible explanation is that most of the surviving exemplars may have belonged to officers and that silver- or gold-plating denoted rank; and, in the case of mounted gemstones, high rank e.g. the ornate Deurne helmet, believed by some historians to have belonged to a senior officer.[209] Other academics, in contrast, consider that silver-sheathed helmets may have been widely worn by comitatenses soldiers, given as a form of pay or reward.[245] Roman law indicates that all helmets of this construction were supposed to be sheathed in a specific amount of gold or silver.[246]

The classic legionary scutum, a convex rectangular shield, also disappeared during the 3rd century. All troops except archers adopted large, wide, usually dished, ovoid (or sometimes round) shields, these shields were still called Scuta or Clipei, despite the difference in shape.[247][248] Shields, from examples found at Dura Europos and Nydam, were of vertical plank construction, the planks glued, and mostly faced inside and out with painted leather, the edges of the shield were bound with stitched rawhide, which shrank as it dried improving structural cohesion.[249]

The gladius, a short (median length: 460 mm/18 inches) stabbing-sword that was designed for close-quarters fighting, and was standard for the infantry of the Principate (both legionary and auxiliary), also was phased out during the 3rd century. The infantry adopted the spatha, a longer (median length: 760 mm/30 in) sword that during the earlier centuries was used by the cavalry only.[20] In addition, Vegetius mentions the use of a shorter-bladed sword termed a semispatha.[250] At the same time, infantry acquired a heavy thrusting-spear (contus) which became the main close order combat weapon to replace the gladius. These trends imply a greater emphasis on fighting the enemy "at arm's length".[251] In the 4th century, there is no archaeological or artistic evidence of the pugio (Roman military dagger), which is attested until the 3rd century. 4th-century graves have yielded short, single-edged knives in conjunction with military belt fittings.[252]

In addition to his thrusting-spear, a late foot soldier might carry a spiculum, a kind of pilum, similar to an angon. Alternatively, he may have been armed with short javelins (verruta or lanceae). Late Roman infantrymen often carried half a dozen lead-weighted throwing-darts called plumbatae (from plumbum = "lead"), with an effective range of c. 30 m (98 ft), well beyond that of a javelin. The darts were carried clipped to the back of the shield or in a quiver,[253] the late foot soldier thus had greater missile capability than his predecessor from the Principate, who was often limited to just two pila.[254] Late Roman archers continued to use the recurved composite bow as their principal weapon, this was a sophisticated, compact and powerful weapon, suitable for mounted and foot archers alike. A small number of archers may have been armed with crossbows (manuballistae).[255]

The products of the fabricae, from the Notitia dignitatum. The illustration includes: helmets, shields, mail coats, cuirasses and laminated limb defences, plus various weapons.

Full-scale reconstruction of a 4th-century Roman river patrol-boat (lusoria), probably under the command of the dux of Germania I province. It is based on the remains of one of five late Roman river boats discovered at Moguntiacum in the early 1980s, the boat above, denoted Mainz Type A, had a long (22 m) and narrow (2.8 m) shape for speed and rounded keel to allow access to shallows. It could carry 32 marines, who rowed the boat fully armed (32 oars, 16 on each side). Whilst on board, the soldiers would hang their shields on stands fixed to the gunwales so as to provide cover from missiles launched from the riverbanks. Museum für Antike Schifffahrt, Mainz, Germany

A critical advantage enjoyed by the late army over all its foreign enemies except the Persians was a highly sophisticated organisation to ensure that the army was properly equipped and supplied on campaign. Like their enemies, the late army could rely on foraging for supplies when campaigning on enemy soil, but this was obviously undesirable on Roman territory and impractical in winter, or in spring before the harvest.[256][257] The empire's complex supply organisation enabled the army to campaign in all seasons and in areas where the enemy employed a "scorched earth" policy.

The responsibility for supplying the army rested with the praefectus praetorio of the operational sector, he in turn controlled a hierarchy of civilian authorities (diocesan vicarii and provincial governors), whose agents collected, stored and delivered supplies to the troops directly or to predetermined fortified points.[258] The quantities involved were enormous and would require lengthy and elaborate planning for major campaigns. A late legion of 1,000 men would require a minimum of 2.3 tonnes of grain-equivalent every day.[259] An imperial escort army of 25,000 men would thus require around 5,000 tonnes of grain-equivalent for three months' campaigning (plus fodder for the horses and pack animals).

Such vast cargoes would be carried by boat as far as possible, by sea and/or river, and only the shortest possible distance overland, that is because transport on water was far more economical than on land (as it remains today, although the differential is smaller).

Land transport of military supplies on the cursus publicus (imperial transport service) was typically by wagons (angariae), with a maximum legal load of 1,500 lbs (680 kg), drawn by two pairs of oxen.[260] The payload capacity of most Roman freighter-ships of the period was in the range of 10,000–20,000 modii (70–140 tonnes) although many of the grain freighters supplying Rome were much larger up 350 tonnes and a few giants which could load 1200 like the Isis which Lucian saw in Athens circa 180 A.D.[261] Thus, a vessel of median capacity of 100 tonnes, with a 20-man crew, could carry the same load as c. 150 wagons (which required 150 drivers and 600 oxen, plus pay for the former and fodder for the animals). A merchant ship would also, with a favourable wind, typically travel three times faster than the typical 3 km/h (2 mph) achieved by the wagons and for as long as there was daylight, whereas oxen could only haul for at most 5 hours per day. Thus freighters could easily cover 100 km (62 mi) per day, compared to c. 15 km (9 mi) by the wagons.[262][263] Against this must be set the fact that most freighters of this capacity were propelled by square sails only (and no oars), they could only progress if there was a following wind, and could spend many days in port waiting for one. (However, smaller coastal and fluvial freighters called actuariae combined oars with sail and had more flexibility). Maritime transport was also completely suspended for at least four months in the winter (as stormy weather made it too hazardous) and even during the rest of the year, shipwrecks were common.[264] Nevertheless, the surviving shipping-rates show that it was cheaper to transport a cargo of grain by sea from Syria to Lusitania (i.e. the entire length of the Mediterranean – and a ways beyond – c. 5,000 km) than just 110 km (68 mi) overland.[262]

On rivers, actuariae could operate year-round, except during periods when the rivers were ice-bound or of high water (after heavy rains or thaw), when the river-current was dangerously strong, it is likely that the establishment of the empire's frontier on the Rhine-Danube line was dictated by the logistical need for large rivers to accommodate supply ships more than by defensibility. These rivers were dotted with purpose-built military docks (portus exceptionales),[265] the protection of supply convoys on the rivers was the responsibility of the fluvial flotillas (classes) under the command of the riverine duces. The Notitia gives no information about the Rhine flotillas (as the Rhine frontier had collapsed by the time the Western section was compiled), but mentions 4 classes Histricae (Danube flotillas) and 8 other classes in tributaries of the Danube. Each flotilla was commanded by a praefectus classis who reported to the local dux, it appears that each dux on the Danube disposed of at least one flotilla (one, the dux Pannoniae, controlled three).[266]

In the 4th century, the production of weapons and equipment was highly centralised (and presumably standardised) in a number of major state-run arms factories, or fabricae, documented in the Notitia, it is unknown when these were first established, but they certainly existed by the time of Diocletian.[267] In the 2nd century, there is evidence of fabricae inside legionary bases and even in the much smaller auxiliary forts, staffed by the soldiers themselves,[268] but there is no evidence, literary or archaeological, of fabricae outside military bases and staffed by civilians during the Principate (although their existence cannot be excluded, as no archaeological evidence has been found for the late fabricae either). Late fabricae were located in border provinces and dioceses,[269] some were general manufacturers producing both armour and weapons (fabrica scutaria et armorum) or just one of the two. Others were specialised in one or more of the following: fabrica spatharia (sword manufacture), lanciaria (spears), arcuaria (bows), sagittaria (arrows), loricaria (body armour), clibanaria (cataphract armour), and ballistaria (catapults).[270]

The Walls of Theodosius II at Constantinople, built 408–413, to increase the area of land protected by the original Constantinian walls. Note the massive crenellated towers and surviving sections of wall, the walls actually consisted of a triple curtain, each one overlooking the other. They proved impregnable to even the largest armies until the introduction of explosive artillery in the later Middle Ages

An example of late Roman fortification. Note the protruding towers to allow enfilading fire, the original height of both walls and towers was clearly greater than today, and the crenellations are not the original ones, but crudely cut from the curtain wall itself in the medieval period. The church visible inside the walls was built in the 12th century by the Normans. Portchester Castle, England. 3rd century

Compared to the 1st and 2nd centuries, the 3rd and 4th centuries saw much greater fortification activity, with many new forts built.[142] Later Roman fortifications, both new and upgraded old ones, contained much stronger defensive features than their earlier counterparts; in addition, the late 3rd/4th centuries saw the fortification of many towns and cities including the City of Rome itself and its eastern sister, Constantinople.[271]

According to Luttwak, Roman forts of the 1st/2nd centuries, whether castra legionaria (inaccurately translated as legionary "fortresses") or auxiliary forts, were clearly residential bases that were not designed to withstand assault, the typical rectangular "playing-card" shape, the long, thin and low walls and shallow ditch and the unfortified gates were not defensible features and their purpose was delimitation and keeping out individual intruders.[272] This view is too extreme, as all the evidence suggests that such forts, even the more rudimentary earlier type based on the design of marching-camps (ditch, earth rampart and wooden palisade), afforded a significant level of protection, the latter is exemplified by the siege of the legionary camp at Castra Vetera (Xanten) during the revolt of the Batavi in 69–70 AD. 5,000 legionaries succeeded in holding out for several months against vastly superior numbers of rebel Batavi and their allies under the renegade auxiliary officer Civilis, despite the latter disposing of c. 8,000 Roman-trained and equipped auxiliary troops and deploying Roman-style siege engines. (The Romans were eventually forced to surrender the fort by starvation).[273]

Nevertheless, later forts were undoubtedly built to much higher defensive specifications than their 2nd-century predecessors, including the following features:

Deeper (average: 3 m) and much wider (av. 10 m) perimeter ditches (fossae). These would have flat floors rather than the traditional V-shape,[142] such ditches would make it difficult to bring siege equipment (ladders, rams, and other engines) to the walls. It would also concentrate attackers in an enclosed area where they would be exposed to missile fire from the walls.[274]

Higher (av. 9 m) and thicker (av. 3 m) walls. Walls were made of stone or stone facing with rubble core, the greater thickness would protect the wall from enemy mining. The height of the walls would force attackers to use scaling-ladders, the parapet of the rampart would have crenellations to provide protection from missiles for defenders.[275]

Higher (av. 17.5 m) and projecting corner and interval towers. These would enable enfilading fire on attackers. Towers were normally round or half-round, and only rarely square as the latter were less defensible. Towers would be normally be spaced at 30 m (98 ft) intervals on circuit walls.[276]

Gate towers, one on each side of the gate and projecting out from the gate to allow defenders to shoot into the area in front of the entrance. The gates themselves were normally wooden with metal covering plates to prevent destruction by fire, some gates had portcullises. Postern gates were built into towers or near them to allow sorties.[277]

More numerous than new-build forts were old forts upgraded to higher defensive specifications, thus the two parallel ditches common around earlier forts could be joined by excavating the ground between them. Projecting towers were added. Gates were either rebuilt with projecting towers or sealed off by constructing a large rectangular bastion, the walls were strengthened by doubling the old thickness. Upgraded forts were generally much larger than new-build. New forts were rarely over one hectare in size and were normally placed to fill gaps between old forts and towns.[278] However, not all of the old forts that continued to be used in the 4th century were upgraded e.g. the forts on Hadrian's Wall and some other forts in Britannia were not significantly modified.[279]

The main features of late Roman fortification clearly presage those of medieval castles, but the defensibility of late Roman forts must not be exaggerated. Late Roman forts were not always located on defensible sites, such as hilltops and they were not designed as independent logistic facilities where the garrison could survive for years on internal supplies (water in cisterns or from wells and stored food), they remained bases for troops that would sally out and engage the enemy in the field.[280]

Nevertheless, the benefits of more defensible forts are evident: they could act as temporary refuges for overwhelmed local troops during barbarian incursions, while they waited for reinforcements, the forts were difficult for the barbarians to take by assault, as they generally lacked the necessary equipment. The forts could store sufficient supplies to enable the defenders to hold out for a few weeks, and to supply relieving troops, they could also act as bases from which defenders could make sorties against isolated groups of barbarians and to cooperate with relieving forces.[281]

The question arises as to why the 4th-century army needed forts with enhanced defensive features whereas the 2nd-century army apparently did not. Luttwak argues that defensible forts were an integral feature of a 4th-century defence-in-depth "grand strategy", while in the 2nd century "preclusive defence" rendered such forts unnecessary , but the existence of such a "strategy" is strongly disputed by several scholars, as many elements of the late Roman army's posture were consistent with continued forward defence.[282] An alternative explanation is that preclusive defence was still in effect but was not working as well as previously and barbarian raids were penetrating the empire more frequently.(see Strategy, below)

Edward Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (1976) re-launched the thesis of Theodor Mommsen that in the 3rd and early 4th centuries, the empire's defence strategy mutated from "forward defence" (or "preclusive defence") in the Principate to "defence-in-depth" in the 4th century. According to Luttwak, the army of the Principate had relied on neutralising imminent barbarian incursions before they reached the imperial borders, this was achieved by stationing units (both legions and auxiliary regiments) right on the border and establishing and garrisoning strategic salients beyond the borders. The response to any threat would thus be a pincer movement into barbarian territory: large infantry and cavalry forces from the border bases would immediately cross the border to intercept the coalescing enemy army.[283]

According to Luttwak, the forward defence system was always vulnerable to unusually large barbarian concentrations of forces, as the Roman army was too thinly spread along the enormous borders to deal with such threats; in addition, the lack of any reserves to the rear of the border entailed that a barbarian force that successfully penetrated the perimeter defences would have unchallenged ability to rampage deep into the empire before Roman reinforcements from other border garrisons could arrive to intercept them.[284]

The essential feature of defence-in-depth, according to Luttwak, was an acceptance that the Roman frontier provinces themselves would become the main combat-zone in operations against barbarian threats, rather than the barbarian lands across the border. Under this strategy, border-forces (limitanei) would not attempt to repel a large incursion. Instead, they would retreat into fortified strongholds and wait for mobile forces (comitatenses) to arrive and intercept the invaders. Border-forces would be substantially weaker than under forward defence, but their reduction in numbers (and quality) would be compensated by the establishment of much stronger fortifications to protect themselves.[285]

But the validity of Luttwak's thesis has been strongly contested by a number of scholars, especially in a powerful critique by B. Isaac, the author of a leading study of the Roman army in the East (1992).[286][287][288] Isaac claims that the empire did not have the intelligence capacity or centralised military planning to sustain a grand strategy e.g. there was no equivalent to a modern army's general staff.[289] In any case, claims Isaac, the empire was not interested in "defence" at all: it was fundamentally aggressive both in ideology and military posture, up to and including the 4th century.[290]

Furthermore, there is a lack of substantial archaeological or literary evidence to support the defence-in-depth theory.[291] J.C. Mann points out that there is no evidence, either in the Notitia Dignitatum or in the archaeological record, that units along the Rhine or Danube were stationed in the border hinterlands,[292] on the contrary, virtually all forts identified as built or occupied in the 4th century on the Danube lay on, very near or even beyond the river, strikingly similar to the 2nd-century distribution.[293][294]

Another supposed element of "defence-in-depth" were the comitatus praesentales (imperial escort-armies) stationed in the interior of the empire. A traditional view is that the escort-armies' role was precisely as a strategic reserve of last resort that could intercept really large barbarian invasions that succeeded in penetrating deep into the empire (such as the invasions of the late 3rd century), but these large comitatus were not established before 312, by which time there had not been a successful barbarian invasion for c. 40 years. Also Luttwak himself admits that they were too distant from the frontier to be of much value in intercepting barbarian incursions,[295] their arrival in theatre could take weeks, if not months.[296] Although the comitatus praesentales are often described as "mobile field-armies", in this context "immobile" would be a more accurate description. Hence the mainstream modern view that the central role of comitatus praesentales was to provide emperors with insurance against usurpers.[27]

Luttwak terminates his analysis at the end of Constantine's reign, before the establishment of the diocesan comitatus. Unlike the imperial escort-armies, these were close enough to the theatre of operations to succour the border troops, but their stationing may have differed little from the location of legions in the 2nd century, even though they apparently wintered inside cities, rather than in purpose-built legionary bases.[297] For example, the two comitatus of Illyricum (East and West) are documented as wintering in Sirmium, which was the site of a major legionary base in the Principate.[298]

Furthermore, the late empire maintained a central feature of the forward defence of the Principate: a system of treaties of mutual assistance with tribes living on the imperial frontiers, the Romans would promise to defend the ally from attack by its neighbours. In return, the ally would promise to refrain from raiding imperial territory, and prevent neighbouring tribes from doing the same, although the allies would officially be denoted tributarii (i.e. subject to paying tribute to Rome, in cash or in kind), in practice the loyalty of the ally was often secured by gifts or regular subsidies from Rome. This practice was applied on all the frontiers,[170] the Romans continued to assist the client tribes to defend themselves in the 4th century. For example, Constantine I's army constructed two massive lines of defensive earthworks, 100–250 km beyond the Danube, totalling c. 1,500 km (932 mi) in length, the Devil's Dykes in Hungary/Romania and the Brazda lui Novac de Nord in Romania. Garrisoned by a mix of Roman and native troops, their purpose was to protect Dacian and Sarmatian tributary tribes of the Tisza and Wallachian plains against Gothic incursions, this created a Transdanubian buffer zone, extending from Aquincum (Budapest) all the way to the Danube delta, obviously contradicting the proposition that the empire's Danubian border provinces were themselves envisaged as buffer zones.[299] (This was especially unlikely in the case of these regions, as the Illyrian emperors and officer class that dominated the late army would hardly relish seeing their native provinces reduced to combat zones).

Late Roman emperors continued major and frequent offensive operations beyond the imperial borders throughout the 4th century, these were strikingly similar to the pincer movements described by Luttwak as being characteristic of forward defence in the early Principate. For example, Valentinian I's campaign against the Quadi in 375.[300]Julian in 356–60 and Valentinian I in 368–74 carried out several operations across the Rhine and Danube designed to force the submission of local tribes and their acceptance of tributarii status.[301]

The late army's "defence" posture thus contains many elements that are similar to that of the army of the Principate, raising the question of whether defence-in-depth was ever in reality contemplated (or implemented) as a strategy, but the debate about defence-in-depth is still very much alive in academic circles.

Late Roman cavalry officers (bottom right) in a hunting scene. In combat, most cavalrymen would, like infantry, wear a mail shirt and helmet. Mosaic from Piazza Armerina, Sicily. 4th century

A traditional thesis is that cavalry assumed a much greater importance in the 4th-century army than it enjoyed in the 2nd century. According to this view, cavalry increased significantly as a proportion of the total forces and took over the leading tactical role from the infantry, it also enjoyed much higher status than in the 2nd century. At the same time, the infantry declined in efficiency and value in operations, leaving the cavalry as the effective arm; in fact, there is no good evidence to support this view, and plenty of evidence against it.[161]

As regards numbers, the mid-2nd-century army contained c. 80,000 cavalry out of c. 385,000 total effectives i.e. cavalry constituted c. 21% of the total forces.[8] For the late army, about one third of the army units in the Notitia are cavalry, but in numbers cavalry were a smaller proportion of the total because cavalry units were on average smaller than infantry units, for example, in the comitatus, cavalry vexillationes were probably half the size of infantry legiones. Overall, the available evidence suggests that the proportion of cavalry was much the same as in the 2nd century. Examples: in 478, a comitatus of 38,000 men contained 8,000 cavalry (21%); in 357, the comitatus of Gaul, 13–15,000 strong, contained an estimated 3,000 cavalry (20–23%).[302]

As a consequence, most battles in the 4th century were, as in previous centuries, primarily infantry encounters, with cavalry playing a supporting role, the main qualification is that on the Eastern frontier, cavalry played a more prominent role, due to the Persian reliance on cavalry as their main arm. This obliged the Romans to strengthen their own cavalry element, in particular by increasing the number of cataphracti.[20]

The supposedly higher status of cavalry in the 4th century is also open to doubt, this view is largely based on underestimating the importance of cavalry in the 2nd century.[161] Cavalry always had higher status than infantry in the Principate: in the time of Domitian (r. 81–96), auxiliary cavalry was paid 20–40% more than auxiliary infantry.[303]

The view of some modern scholars that the 4th-century cavalry was a more efficient service than the infantry was certainly not shared by Ammianus and his contemporaries. Ammianus describes three major battles which were actually or nearly lost due to the incompetence or cowardice of the Roman cavalry.[304] (1) The Battle of Strasbourg (357), where the cavalry, including cataphracts, were routed by their German counterparts at an early stage, leaving the Roman infantry right wing dangerously exposed. After fleeing behind the infantry lines, it took the personal intervention of Julian to rally them and persuade them to return to the fight. (The cataphracts were later ordered to wear female clothes by Julian as punishment).[305] (2) During his Persian campaign (363), Julian was obliged to sanction two cavalry units for fleeing when caught by surprise attacks (one unit was decimated, the other dismounted). Later, the Tertiaci cavalry regiment was ordered to march with the camp followers for deserting the field just as the infantry was on the point of breaking the Persian line. (3) At the Battle of Adrianople (378), the Roman cavalry was largely responsible for the catastrophic defeat. Scholae units started the battle by an unauthorised attack on the enemy wagon circle, at a moment when their emperor Valens was still trying to negotiate a truce with the Goths. The attack failed, and when the Gothic cavalry appeared, the Roman cavalry fled, leaving the Roman infantry left wing exposed, the Gothic cavalry then routed the Roman left wing, and the battle was as good as lost.[306]

In contrast, the excellent performance of the infantry, both comitatenses and limitanei, is a recurrent feature of Ammianus' history, at the Persian siege of Amida, Ammianus' eye-witness account describes the city's defence by limitanei units as skilful and tenacious, if ultimately unsuccessful.[307] At Strasbourg (357), the infantry showed remarkable skill, discipline and resilience throughout, saving the day at two critical moments.(see Battle of Strasbourg for a detailed account).[308] Even at the disaster of Adrianople, the Roman infantry fought on, despite being abandoned by their cavalry and surrounded on three sides by overwhelmingly superior numbers of Goths.[309]

Just as the armour and weapons of the late army were fundamentally similar to those of earlier eras, so the army's tactics were based on traditional principles, the key elements of systematic scouting, marching formation, battle array, fortified camping, and siegecraft were all followed intact in the late period.[310] This section examines aspects of late tactics that differed significantly from tactics of the Principate.

One striking difference was that late army doctrine (and practice) aimed at avoiding open battle with the enemy if possible, unlike the early doctrine from the Principate of seeking to bring the enemy to battle as often and as quickly as possible,[311][312] the main motivation was likely not a reduced ability to win such encounters. The late army continued to win the great majority of its battles with barbarians.[313] Rather, the primary concern seemed to be the need to minimise casualties.[311] Pitched battles generally resulted in heavy losses of high-grade comitatenses troops, which could not be easily replaced, this in turn supports the hypothesis that the late army had greater difficulty than the Principate in finding sufficient recruits, and especially high-quality recruits. The late army preferred to attack the enemy by stealth or stratagem: ambushes, surprise attacks, harassment and manoeuvres to corner the enemy in zones where they could not access supplies and from which they could not escape (e.g. by blocking mountain passes or river crossings).[314]

Where battle could not be avoided, the late army broadly followed traditional practice as regards array. Heavy infantry would be drawn up in a main line, normally straight and several ranks deep. Mounted archers were stationed, together with light-armed slingers, in front of the main infantry line. Cavalry would be posted on the wings (light cavalry on the outside). Foot archers would form the rear rank(s) of the main infantry line.[315] There would be a reserve line of infantry and cavalry of variable strength, to the rear of the main line, in order to deal with breaches in the main line and to exploit opportunities, at a distance of a mile or so to the rear of the army, its fortified camp of the previous night would contain its assistants and baggage, guarded by a small garrison. The camp could act as a refuge if the army was put to flight. Roman armies in the field never camped overnight without constructing defences. A ditch would be dug around the perimeter of the camp, and the spoil used to erect a rampart, which would then be topped with a palisade of sharpened wooden stakes arranged cross-hatched to form an impenetrable screen, such defences, systematically patrolled, effectively precluded surprise attacks and enabled the troops to get a good night's sleep.[316]

Where the late army appears to have evolved to some extent is in battle tactics, the older army of the Principate had relied on a barrage of heavy javelins (pila) followed by an infantry charge, which was often sufficient to shatter, or at least disorganise, the barbarian line. After that, legionaries were trained to engage in aggressive hand-to-hand combat, using the gladius short-sword to execute quick thrusts at the abdomen of their enemies, in a similar manner to more recent bayonet drill.[317] In close combat, the Romans had the crucial advantage of superior armour, and such tactics very often resulted in the rout of the less well-equipped and trained barbarian foe,[161] the mounted archers and slingers in front of the main infantry line would loose their missiles on the enemy before the infantry lines engaged and would then hastily retreat to the rear of their own infantry line, whence, in conjunction with the foot archers already there, they would loose a continuous rain of missiles on the enemy foot by shooting over the heads of their own infantry.[318] The cavalry's task on each wing was to scatter the enemy cavalry facing them and then, if possible, to encircle the main body of enemy infantry and attack them from the flanks and rear.

In the late army, while the role of archers and cavalry remained similar, the infantry's tactics were less aggressive, relying less on the charge and often waiting for the enemy to charge,[254] during the battle, the Roman line would exert steady pressure in close formation. The thrusting-spear (2–2.5 m long) had replaced the gladius (just 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) long) as the primary mêlée weapon.[319] The extended reach of the thrusting-spear, combined with the adoption of oval or round shields, permitted a battle array where shields were interlocked to form a "shield wall". (Spears would protrude through the 'V' shaped gaps formed between overlapping shields).[320][321] The late army also relied more heavily on missiles, replacing the single volley of pila with a more prolonged discharge of javelins and darts.[254]

This kind of combat was consistent with the aim of minimising casualties and its efficacy is illustrated by the Battle of Strasbourg, the battle was primarily a struggle of attrition where steady pressure on the barbarians resulted in their eventual rout. Despite a long and hard-fought struggle, Roman casualties were negligible in comparison to the losses sustained by the defeated army.[322]

Drawing of Flavius Stilicho, the half-Vandal general who was magister utriusque militiae (commander-in-chief) of West Roman forces 395–408. The general is depicted in the standard attire of a common foot soldier of the time when not in combat, wearing a chlamys (military cloak) over his tunic and carrying a heavy thrusting-spear and oval shield (in combat most late soldiers wore mail shirts and helmets), he was made a scapegoat for the barbarian invasions of 405–6, although in reality his military skill may have saved the West from early collapse. Derived (1848) from an ivory diptych at Monza, Italy

The barbarisation theory, ultimately derived from Edward Gibbon's 18th-century magnum opus, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, contains two propositions. (1) That the late army recruited much greater numbers of barbarian-born troops than the army of the Principate; and (2) that the greater number of barbarian recruits resulted in a major decline of the army's effectiveness and was a leading factor in the collapse of the Western Roman empire. As discussed above, proposition (1) is probably correct, although it should be borne in mind that probably about three-quarters of the late army's recruits remained Roman-born, this section considers proposition (2).

According to this view, the barbarian officers and men recruited by the late army, coming from tribes that were traditional enemies of Rome, had no real loyalty to Rome and often betrayed her interests, colluding with invading barbarian tribes, especially if those tribes were their own, at the same time, the spread of barbarian customs and culture led to a decline in traditional military discipline, and internal army disunity due to friction between Romans and barbarians. Ultimately, the army degenerated into just a collection of foreign mercenary bands that were incapable of defending the empire effectively.[184]

According to the historian A.D. Lee, there is little evidence to support this view and compelling reasons to reject it. Firstly, the late army clearly was not, and did not become, ineffective, the regular army in the West remained a formidable force until the political disintegration of the West in mid-5th century and continued to win most of its major encounters with barbarian forces e.g. the defeat of Radagaisus in 405.[323] In any case, the Eastern empire did not collapse, even though its army probably contained at least the same proportion of barbarians as the West, if not greater. An analysis of the ethnicity of Roman army officers named in the sources shows that in the period 350–99, 23% were probably barbarian-born, the same figure for period 449–76 officers, virtually all Easterners (as the Western army had largely dissolved) was 31%.[324] In the Notitia, 55 Eastern regiments carry barbarian names, compared with 25 in the Western army.[325]

There is a tendency by some modern scholars to ascribe to ancient barbarians a degree of ethnic solidarity that did not exist, according to A.H.M. Jones. Germanic tribes were constantly fighting each other and even within such tribal confederations as the Franks or Alamanni there were bitter feuds between the constituent tribes and clans. Indeed, a primary reason why many tribal sub-groups surrendered to the Roman authorities (dediticii) and sought to settle in the empire as laeti was in order to escape pressure from their neighbours,[34] the few known conflicts of loyalty only arose when the Roman army was campaigning against a barbarian-born soldier's own specific clan.[326] Ammianus himself never characterises barbarian-born troops as unreliable,[327] on the contrary, his evidence is that barbarian soldiers were as loyal, and fought as hard, as Roman ones.[328]

An indication of the army's high esteem for barbarian-born troops is that they appear to have been preferentially recruited to the elite units of the late imperial era's armies; in the auxilia palatina infantry regiments, the proportion of barbarians in the ranks appears to have numbered anywhere between a third and a half of effectives (compared to a quarter in the army as a whole).[329] From the late 3rd century onwards, barbarian recruitment became crucial to the army's continued existence, by providing a much-needed source of first-rate recruits.[330][331][332][333]

The former Oxford University historian Adrian Goldsworthy has argued that the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire in the West should not be blamed on barbarization of the late Roman Army, but on its recurrent civil wars, which led to its ability to repel or defeat invasions from outside its frontiers to be seriously weakened, the East Roman or Byzantine empire on the other hand had fewer civil wars to contend with in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, or in the years from 383-432 A.D.[334]

^Assuming that auxilia would be expanded by the same amount as legions. J. C. Spaul ALA (1996) 257–60 and COHORS 2 (2000) 523–7 identify 4 alae and 20–30 cohortes raised in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries

^Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 cohorts of 480 men each plus German bodyguards

^Symonds, Matthew (2015). "Fourth Century Fortlets in Britain: Sophisticated Systems or Desperate Measures?". Roman Military Architecture on the Frontiers: Armies and their Architecturue in Late Antiquity: 56.

^The Strategikon book 1, sections 2 and 8, book 3, section 1, book 12B, section 5. Although this covers a later period, going by George Dennis's translation, most horse archers did not carry shields, and the foot archers carried small shields.

^Goldsworthy, Adrian, The Fall of the West: The Slow Death of the Roman Superpower, Great Britain, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, paperback edition by Orion Books Ltd, London, 2010. Published in the U.S.A. as How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower.

Bishop and Coulston, M.C. & J.C.N. (2006). Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd ed. ISBN1-84217-159-3.

The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. 2: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire, ed. P. Sabin, H. van Wees and L.M. Whitby (Cambridge University Press 2007) ISBN978-0-521-85779-6

Coello, T. (1996). Unit Sizes in the late Roman Army.

Cowan, Ross (2015). Roman Legionary, AD 284-337: The Age of Diocletian and Constantine the Great

1.
Western Roman Empire
–
Theodosius I divided the Empire upon his death between his two sons. As the Roman Republic expanded, it reached a point where the government in Rome could not effectively rule the distant provinces. Communications and transportation were especially problematic given the vast extent of the Empire, for this reason, provincial governors had de facto rule in the name of the Roman Republic. Antony received the provinces in the East, Achaea, Macedonia and Epirus, Bithynia, Pontus and Asia, Syria, Cyprus and these lands had previously been conquered by Alexander the Great, thus, much of the aristocracy was of Greek origin. The whole region, especially the cities, had been largely assimilated into Greek culture. Octavian obtained the Roman provinces of the West, Italia, Gaul, Gallia Belgica and these lands also included Greek and Carthaginian colonies in the coastal areas, though Celtic tribes such as Gauls and Celtiberians were culturally dominant. Lepidus received the province of Africa. Octavian soon took Africa from Lepidus, while adding Sicilia to his holdings, upon the defeat of Mark Antony, a victorious Octavian controlled a united Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire featured many distinct cultures, all were often said to experience gradual Romanization, minor rebellions and uprisings were fairly common events throughout the Empire. Conquered tribes or cities would revolt, and the legions would be detached to crush the rebellion, while this process was simple in peacetime, it could be considerably more complicated in wartime, as for example in the Great Jewish Revolt. In a full-blown military campaign, the legions, under such as Vespasian, were far more numerous. To ensure a commanders loyalty, an emperor might hold some members of the generals family hostage. To this end, Nero effectively held Domitian and Quintus Petillius Cerialis, governor of Ostia, the rule of Nero ended only with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard, who had been bribed in the name of Galba. The Praetorian Guard, a sword of Damocles, were often perceived as being of dubious loyalty. Following their example, the legions at the increased participation in the civil wars. The main enemy in the West was arguably the Germanic tribes behind the rivers Rhine, Augustus had tried to conquer them but ultimately pulled back after the Teutoburg reversal. The Parthian Empire, in the East, on the hand, was too remote. Those distant territories were forsaken to prevent unrest and also to ensure a more healthy, the Parthians were followed by the Sasanian Empire, which continued hostilities with the Roman Empire

2.
East Roman army
–
The East Roman army is the continuation of the Late Roman army of the 4th century until the Byzantine army of the 7th century onwards. The East Roman army was a continuation of the eastern portion of the late Roman army. In the 6th century, the emperor Justinian I, who reigned from 527 to 565, in these wars, the East Roman empire reconquered parts of North Africa from the Vandal kingdom and Italy from the Ostrogothic Kingdom, as well as parts of southern Spain. Much of our evidence for the East Roman armys deployments at the end of the 4th century is contained in a single document, 395-420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil. The main deficiency with the Notitia is that it lacks any personnel figures so as to estimates of army size impossible. However, the Notitia remains the source on the late Armys structure due to the dearth of other evidence. The Strategikon of the Emperor Maurikios, from the end of the 6th century, describes the cavalry tactics, organization, and equipment of the East Roman army towards the end of this period. The De re Militari of Vegetius, probably from the beginning of the 5th century, calls for reform of the West Roman army, which was similar to the east Roman army. However, the De re Militari emphasizes the revival of earlier Roman practices, and does not provide a view of the tactics, organization. The histories of Ammianus Marcellinus provide a glimpse of the late Roman army before the division of the Roman empire, the histories of Agathias and Menander continue those of Procopius. Another major source for the East Roman army includes the legal codes published in the East Roman empire in the 5th and 6th centuries, the Theodosian code and the Corpus Iuris Civilis. These compilations of Roman laws dating from the 4th century contain numerous imperial decrees relating to the regulation and administration of the late army. In 395, the death of the last sole Roman emperor, Theodosius I, the system of dual emperors had been instituted a century earlier by the great reforming emperor Diocletian. But it had never been envisaged as a separation, purely as an administrative. Decrees issued by either emperor were valid in both halves and the successor of each Augustus required the recognition of the other. The empire was reunited under one emperor under Constantine I, after 324, under Constantius II, after 353, under Julian, after 361, the division into two sections recognized a growing cultural divergence. The common language of the East had always been Greek, while that of the West was Latin and this was not per se a significant division, as the empire had long been a fusion of Greek and Roman cultures and the Roman ruling class was entirely bilingual. But the rise of Christianity strained that unity, as the cult was always much more widespread in the East than in the West, which was still largely pagan in 395

3.
Early Muslim conquests
–
The early Muslim conquests also referred to as the Arab conquests and early Islamic conquests began with the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. He established a new unified polity in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun, the resulting empire stretched from the borders of China and the Indian subcontinent, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. The Muslim conquests brought about the collapse of the Sassanid Empire, the reasons for the Muslim success are hard to reconstruct in hindsight, primarily because only fragmentary sources from the period have survived. Most historians agree that the Sassanid Persian and Byzantine Roman empires were militarily and economically exhausted from decades of fighting one another, in the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before being reclaimed from the Persians. The estimates for the size of the Islamic Caliphate suggest it was more than thirteen million square kilometers, the last of these wars ended with victory for the Byzantines, Emperor Heraclius regained all lost territories, and restored the True Cross to Jerusalem in 629. According to George Liska, the unnecessarily prolonged Byzantine–Persian conflict opened the way for Islam, in late 620s Muhammad had already managed to conquer and unify much of Arabia under Muslim rule, and it was under his leadership that the first Muslim-Byzantine skirmishes took place. The province of Syria was the first to be wrested from Byzantine control, on the heels of their victory, the Arab armies took Damascus in 636, with Baalbek, Homs, and Hama to follow soon afterwards. However, other fortified towns continued to resist despite the rout of the army and had to be conquered individually. Jerusalem fell in 638, Caesarea in 640, while others held out until 641, the Byzantine province of Egypt held strategic importance for its grain production, naval yards, and as a base for further conquests in Africa. The Muslim general Amr ibn al-As began the conquest of the province on his own initiative in 639, nevertheless, the province was scarcely urbanized and the defenders lost hope of receiving reinforcements from Constantinople when the emperor Heraclius died in 641. The last major center to fall into Arab hands was Alexandria, according to Hugh Kennedy, Of all the early Muslim conquests, that of Egypt was the swiftest and most complete. Seldom in history can so massive a political change have happened so swiftly, after an Arab incursion into Sasanian territories, the energetic king Yazdgerd III, who had just ascended the Persian throne, raised an army to resist the invasion. However, the Persians suffered a defeat at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah in 636. As a result, the Arab-Muslims gained control over the whole of Iraq, including Ctesiphon, the Persian forces withdrew over the Zagros mountains and the Arab army pursued them across the Iranian plateau, where the fate of the Sasanian empire was sealed at the Battle of Nahavand. In the aftermath of their victory over the army, the invaders still had to contend with a collection of militarily weak. It took decades to bring all under control of the caliphate. The rapidity of the early conquests has received various explanations, contemporary Christian writers conceived them as Gods punishment visited on their fellow Christians for their sins. Early Muslim historians viewed them as a reflection of religious zeal of the conquerors, according to Chase F. Robinson, it is likely that Muslim forces were often outnumbered, but, unlike their opponents, they were fast, well coordinated and highly motivated

4.
Theme (Byzantine district)
–
The themes or themata were the main administrative divisions of the middle Byzantine Empire. The theme system reached its apogee in the 9th and 10th centuries, as older themes were split up and the conquest of territory resulted in the creation of new ones. The original theme system underwent significant changes in the 11th and 12th centuries, during the late 6th and early 7th centuries, the Eastern Roman Empire was under frequent attack from all sides. The Sassanid Empire was pressing from the east on Syria, Egypt, slavs and Avars raided Thrace, Macedonia, Illyricum and Greece and settled in the Balkans. The Lombards occupied northern Italy, largely unopposed and these developments overturned the strict division of civil and military offices, which had been one of the cornerstones of the reforms of Diocletian. This trend had already featured in some of the reforms of Justinian I in the 530s. However, in most of the Empire, the old system continued to function until the 640s, the rapid Muslim conquest of Syria and Egypt and consequent Byzantine losses in manpower and territory meant that the Empire found itself struggling for survival. In order to respond to this crisis, the Empire was drastically reorganized. The origin and early nature of the themes has been disputed amongst scholars. The very name thema is of uncertain etymology, but most scholars follow Constantine Porphyrogennetos, the date of their creation is also uncertain. For most of the 20th century, the establishment of the themes was attributed to the Emperor Heraclius, according to Ostrogorsky, this shows that the process of establishing troops in specific areas of Asia Minor has already begun at this time. This view has been objected to by other historians however, and more recent scholarship dates their creation later, to the period from the 640s to the 660s, tied to the question of chronology is also the issue of a corresponding social and military transformation. The traditional view, championed by Ostrogorsky, holds that the establishment of the themes also meant the creation of a new type of army. In his view, instead of the old force, heavily reliant on foreign mercenaries, territorially, each of the new themes encompassed several of the older provinces, and with a few exceptions, seems to have followed the old provincial boundaries. The first four themes were those of the Armeniacs, Anatolics and Thracesians, the Armeniac Theme, first mentioned in 667, was the successor of the Army of Armenia. It occupied the old areas of the Pontus, Armenia Minor and northern Cappadocia, the Anatolic Theme, first mentioned in 669, was the successor of the Army of the East. It covered southern central Asia Minor, and its capital was Amorium, together, these two themes formed the first tier of defence of Byzantine Anatolia, bordering Muslim Armenia and Syria respectively. The Thracesian Theme, first mentioned clearly as late as c,740, was the successor of the Army of Thrace, and covered the central western coast of Asia Minor, with its capital most likely at Chonae

5.
Roman Empire
–
Civil wars and executions continued, culminating in the victory of Octavian, Caesars adopted son, over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC and the annexation of Egypt. Octavians power was then unassailable and in 27 BC the Roman Senate formally granted him overarching power, the imperial period of Rome lasted approximately 1,500 years compared to the 500 years of the Republican era. The first two centuries of the empires existence were a period of unprecedented political stability and prosperity known as the Pax Romana, following Octavians victory, the size of the empire was dramatically increased. After the assassination of Caligula in 41, the senate briefly considered restoring the republic, under Claudius, the empire invaded Britannia, its first major expansion since Augustus. Vespasian emerged triumphant in 69, establishing the Flavian dynasty, before being succeeded by his son Titus and his short reign was followed by the long reign of his brother Domitian, who was eventually assassinated. The senate then appointed the first of the Five Good Emperors, the empire reached its greatest extent under Trajan, the second in this line. A period of increasing trouble and decline began with the reign of Commodus, Commodus assassination in 192 triggered the Year of the Five Emperors, of which Septimius Severus emerged victorious. The assassination of Alexander Severus in 235 led to the Crisis of the Third Century in which 26 men were declared emperor by the Roman Senate over a time span. It was not until the reign of Diocletian that the empire was fully stabilized with the introduction of the Tetrarchy, which saw four emperors rule the empire at once. This arrangement was unsuccessful, leading to a civil war that was finally ended by Constantine I. Constantine subsequently shifted the capital to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople in his honour and it remained the capital of the east until its demise. Constantine also adopted Christianity which later became the state religion of the empire. However, Augustulus was never recognized by his Eastern colleague, and separate rule in the Western part of the empire ceased to exist upon the death of Julius Nepos. The Eastern Roman Empire endured for another millennium, eventually falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the Roman Empire was among the most powerful economic, cultural, political and military forces in the world of its time. It was one of the largest empires in world history, at its height under Trajan, it covered 5 million square kilometres. It held sway over an estimated 70 million people, at that time 21% of the entire population. Throughout the European medieval period, attempts were made to establish successors to the Roman Empire, including the Empire of Romania, a Crusader state. Rome had begun expanding shortly after the founding of the republic in the 6th century BC, then, it was an empire long before it had an emperor

6.
Scholae
–
Scholae is a Latin word, literally meaning schools that was used in the late Roman Empire to signify a unit of Imperial Guards. The unit survived in the Byzantine Empire until the 12th century, while the singular schola still was used to refer to learning of singing and a mode of writing, the plural had an independent meaning. Next to the old kind of school, the Scholae Palatinae and it remained based at Constantinople, eventually declining to a purely ceremonial role. However, in the 8th century, the Scholae were reformed into one of the elite cataphract Tagmata regiments, also, the guilds of notarii called themselves one schola, or different scholae. Plural of the Ancient Greek word σχολή, meaning, rest, leisure, conversation, lecture, place of lecture, auditorium, school

7.
Palatini (Roman military)
–
The palatini were elite units of the Late Roman army mostly attached to the comitatus praesentales, or imperial escort armies. In the elaborate hierarchy of troop-grades, the palatini ranked below the scholares, but above the comitatenses, the term derives from palatium a reference to the fact that the regiments originally served in the imperial escort armies only. Later they were found in the regional comitatus. There, however, they continued to enjoy higher status and pay than the rest of the comitatus regiments, at the time the Notitia Dignitatum was written, 80% of the regiments in the eastern comitatus praesentales were graded palatini and 14% of those in the regional comitatus. The palatini were created by Constantine I after he disbanded the Praetorian Guard in AD312, as with all comitatus regiments, palatini cavalry regiments were called vexillationes and infantry regiments were either legiones or auxilia. Vexillationes palatinae are believed to have contained 400-600 men, legiones palatinae 800-1,200, field armies were temporary formations, usually composed of the reserve and/or of detachments drawn from the provincial armies. In the later 3rd century, due to the frequent wars, field armies could remain together for years, under the direct command of the emperor. The frontier armies would patrol the borders and oppose small-scale raids and they may have driven off medium-scale attacks without the support of the field armies. The frontier armies would later be known as limitanei or ripenses, the field armies would respond to larger-scale attacks, would fight against rival emperors, and would conduct any large-scale attacks into neighboring countries. The field armies would later be known as comitatenses or palatini, the temporary field armies could be referred to as the sacer comitatus, as could the imperial court. The first known reference to comitatenses was in 325, although there are possibilities from earlier. Historians disagree on whether the emperor Diocletian, or one of his successors, such as Constantine I, split the Roman military into frontier armies, parker, and more recently, Warren Treadgold and David S. Potter attribute the reorganization to Diocletian. E. C. Nischer, D. van Berchem, and more recently, coulston attribute mainly an expansion to Diocletian, and the reorganization to Constantine I and his successors. Karl Strobel sees the reorganization as the culmination of trends going back well into the 3rd century, the Eastern field armies, including the palatini and comitatenses, eventually became the basis of the Eastern themes. The Western field armies, including the palatini and comitatenses, either disintegrated during the collapse of the western Roman Empire, the field armies of the Tetrarchy were under the command of the emperors, with the assistance of the praetorian prefects. There were then four emperors, two Augusti, and two Caesares, who commanded the field armies on campaign. The field armies after Constantine I were under the command of the emperor, with the assistance of the magister peditum, the eastern field armies after Theodosius I were under the overall command of the emperor, with one magister militum for each army. There was usually only one eastern emperor, who commanded the field armies on campaign

8.
Limitanei
–
The limitanei, unlike the comitatenses, palatini, and scolae, garrisoned fortifications along the borders of the Roman Empire and were not normally expected to fight far from their fortifications. The limitanei and palatini both included legionary units alongside auxiliary units, the nature of the limitanei changed considerably between their introduction in the 3rd or 4th century and their disappearance in the 6th or 7th century. The role of the limitanei remains somewhat uncertain, Hugh Elton and Warren Treadgold suggest that, besides garrisoning fortifications along the frontier, they operated as border guards and customs police and to prevent small-scale raids. They may have driven off medium-scale attacks without the support of the field armies, field armies were temporary formations, usually composed of the reserve and/or of detachments drawn from the provincial armies. In the later 3rd century, due to the frequent wars, field armies could remain together for years, under the direct command of the emperor. The frontier armies would patrol the borders and oppose small-scale raids and they may have driven off medium-scale attacks without the support of the field armies. The frontier armies would later be known as limitanei or ripenses, the field armies would respond to larger-scale attacks, would fight against rival emperors, and would conduct any large-scale attacks into neighboring countries. The field armies would later be known as comitatenses or palatini, the first known written reference to ripenses was in 325 and the first to limitanei was not until 363. Historians disagree on whether the emperor Diocletian, or one of his successors, such as Constantine I, split the Roman military into frontier armies, parker, and more recently, Warren Treadgold and David S. Potter attribute the reorganization to Diocletian. E. C. Nischer, D. van Berchem, and more recently, coulston attribute mainly an expansion to Diocletian, and the reorganization to Constantine I and his successors. Karl Strobel sees the reorganization as the culmination of trends going back well into the 3rd century, in the east, the emperor Justinian cancelled their pay. After this, the limitanei were no longer professional soldiers, but continued to exist as militia through the Persian Wars. The Arabic ajnad of Palestine, Jordan, Damascus, and Homs, may represent continuations of the commands of Palaestina, Arabia, Phoeniciae, in the west, the collapse of the empire cut off regular pay. Peter Heather notes an incident in the Life of St. Severinus, in Noricum in the 460s, the limitanei represented the largest part of the late Roman Army. The size of the army, and therefore of the limitanei, jones and Warren Treadgold argue that the late Roman army was significantly larger than earlier Roman armies, and Treadgold estimates they had up to 645,000 troops. Karl Strobel denies this, and Strobel estimates that the late Roman army had some 435,000 troops in the time of Diocletian and 450,000 in the time of Constantine I, the limitanei were usually under the command of the duces of their respective provinces. There were some exceptions, with comites commanding units of limitanei, the size of the legions is unclear. Jones suggested that they could have as many as 3,000 troops, because they are listed with 10 cohorts

9.
Battle of Satala (298)
–
The Battle of Satala was fought in 298, in Armenia, between the forces of the Roman Empire under the Tetrarch Galerius and the forces of the Sassanid Persian ruler Narseh. The battle was a victory for the Roman army, with the Persian army destroyed as a fighting force. Though traditionally known as the Battle of Satala, the location of the battle is not known. In an early Armenian history it is stated that the battle was fought in the region of Basean, Basean is usually placed to the east of Erzerum. In 295 or 296, Narseh declared war on Rome and he appears to have first invaded western Armenia, retaking the lands delivered to King Tiridates III of Armenia in the peace of 287. Narseh then moved south into Roman Mesopotamia, where he inflicted a defeat on Galerius, then commander of the Eastern forces. Galerius had been reinforced, probably in the spring of 298, Narseh did not advance from Armenia and Mesopotamia, allowing Galerius to take the offensive in 298 with an attack on northern Mesopotamia via Armenia. Galerius entered Armenia in company with King Tiridates, local aid also gave the Romans the advantage of surprise over the Persian forces, and, in two successive battles, Galerius secured victories over Narseh. During the second encounter, the Battle of Satala, the Roman forces seized Narsehs camp, his treasury, his harem, detailed descriptions of the dispositions of the two armies have not survived, but it is obvious that the Roman army caught the Persians unprepared whilst encamped. Presumably, the aid of the local Armenian population allowed the Romans to approach. According to the account of Faustus of Byzantium, came and attacked the army of the king of Iran encamped in that place, finding them negligently unconcerned. Attacking during the daytime, they fell upon the Iranian king, putting everything to the sword and sparing no one. Then they took the banak as loot, the women, the bambish. Only the king was able to escape by a hairsbreadth and go free as a fugitive, Narsehs wife would live out the remainder of the war in Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, serving as a constant reminder to the Persians of the Roman victory. Galerius advanced into Media and Adiabene, winning continuous victories, most prominently near Resaina and he moved down the Tigris, taking Ctesiphon, and gazing onwards to the ruins of Babylon before returning to Roman territory via the Euphrates. The battle was followed by the Treaty of Nisibis, highly advantageous to Rome and it ended the Roman–Sassanid war, Tiridates was restored to his throne in Armenia as a Roman vassal, and the Georgian Kingdom of Iberia was acknowledged as also falling under Roman authority. Rome itself received a part of Upper Mesopotamia that extended even beyond the Tigris - including the cities of Tigranokert, Saird, Martyropolis, Balalesa, Moxos, Daudia, and Arzan. Peace was thus assured for some decades until its collapse with the resurgence of Persia under Shapur II in the 330s

10.
Battle of Strasbourg
–
The battle took place near Strasbourg, called Argentoratum in Ammianus Marcellinus account, Argentorate in the Tabula Peutingeriana. Although probably outnumbered by a margin, Julians army won a complete victory after a hard-fought struggle. With negligible casualties of their own, the Romans drove the Alamanni beyond the river Rhine, Julians force, the imperial escort army of Gaul, was small but of high quality. The battle was won by the skill of the Roman infantry, in the years following his victory at Strasbourg, Julian was able to repair and garrison the Rhine forts and impose tributary status on the Germanic tribes beyond the border. By far the most detailed and reliable source for the battle, and Julians Gallic campaign generally, is the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus, Ammianus was a Greek career soldier who joined the army before 350 and served until at least 363. Enlisted as a protector, he served as an officer under magister equitum Ursicinus. Although he was not present at Strasbourg, he had experience of the Gallic front as he was involved in the suppression of the revolt of Claudius Silvanus, however, his narrative reveals a passionate admiration of Julian and occasionally descends to the level of eulogy. Furthermore, as he was writing some 40 years after the event, it is likely that Ammianus relied heavily, if not exclusively, thus Ammianus account probably reflects Julians own propaganda. In addition, Ammianus account is of quality, with many gaps. The late 5th-century Byzantine chronicler Zosimuss Nova Historia deals with the battle, but Zosimus is useful because his account of the revolt of Magnentius survives, unlike Ammianus, which was contained in the 13 lost books of his history. The contemporary rhetorician Libanius delivered Julians funeral oration in 363, whose text survives and this contains some details about the battle which are missing in Ammianus, which he presumably learnt from members of Julians entourage. But because his oration was intended as a eulogy, not a narrative, his account of Julians campaign is unreliable. The emperor Julian himself published a memoir of his campaigns on the Rhine and his Letter to the Athenians, an attempt to justify his rebellion against his cousin and senior emperor Constantius II, contains some details of the Rhine campaigns. During the 3rd century, the small and fragmented tribes of Germania Libera apparently coalesced into large, loose confederations, although riven by internal feuding, these confederations could mobilise large forces and may have presented a greater threat to the empire than previously thought. The Alamanni established a series of small pagi, mostly strung along the East bank of the Rhine, the exact number and extent of these pagi is unclear and probably changed over time. Pagi, usually pairs of pagi combined, formed kingdoms which, it is believed, were permanent. The total Germanic population of Alamannia at this time has been estimated at a tiny 120,000 -150,000 and this compares with the about 10 million inhabitants of Roman Gaul. Alamanni society was a violent warrior-society based on feuding clans, a fine breeding-ground for good warriors, at this time of Strasbourg, the Alamanni confederation appears to have been under the presidency of two patramount kings, Chnodomar and Westralp

11.
Battle of Ctesiphon (363)
–
The Battle of Ctesiphon took place on May 29,363 between the armies of Roman Emperor Julian and the Sassanid King Shapur II outside the walls of the Persian capital Ctesiphon. On November 3,361, Constantius II died in the city of Mobsucrenae, leaving his cousin Flavius Claudius Julianus, known to history as Julian the Apostate, as sole Emperor of Rome. Turning next to foreign policy, Julian saw the previously unchecked military incursions of Shapur II of Persia against the Eastern Roman provinces as posing the greatest external threat, a Roman offensive was desperately needed to halt Shapur. With Julians reputation and exploits during his years as Caesar and general of Gaul preceding him, seeing Julian successfully march into his dominions, Shapur ordered his governors to undertake a scorched earth policy until he reached the Sassanid capital, Ctesiphon, with the main Persian army. However, after a few minor skirmishes and sieges Julian arrived with his army before Shapur II to the walls of Ctesiphon on May 29. Outside the walls a Persian army under Spahbod Merena was formed up for battle across the Tigris, Julians subordinate commanders were nervous, as the Persian army featured cataphracts in the centre and the formidable clibanarii on the wings. There were also war elephants and masses of infantry to the rear, however, Julian had already shown himself to be both a competent and confident general and did not share his subordinates’ worries. Instead, he drew up his army in a crescent formation, designed to achieve envelopment of Shapurs forces, the wings of the Romans advanced swiftly and battle was joined. Contrary to expectations, the battle was a tactical victory for the Romans. But Julian rejected this out of desire for the glory of taking the Persian capital. Also critical was the failure of Procopius to arrive with the 30,000 detachment of the Roman army that could have aided Julian in crushing Shapurs approaching force as he had intended. While Julian was in favor of advancing further into Persian territory, Roman morale was low, disease was spreading, and there was very little forage around. On June 16,363, the retreat began and ten days later, outside Samarra, not even pausing to put on his armour, Julian plunged into the fray shouting encouragement to his men. Just as the Persians were beginning to pull out with heavy losses and his liver fatally pierced, Julian died before midnight, on June 26,363. As a result, the truth of who killed Julian may never be known with certainty, Julian was succeeded by the short-lived emperor Jovian, who lacked the martial vigor and strong will of his honored predecessor. The humiliating peace terms required that the districts on the Tigris and Nisibis be ceded to the Persians, the campaign of 363 would be the last great offensive campaign that consisted of legions and auxiliaries nearing 95,000 strong. Rome not only lost an effective and competent emperor and general in Julian, from Constantine to Julian, Pagan and Byzantine views, A Source History

12.
Battle of Adrianople
–
The Battle of Adrianople, sometimes known as the Battle of Hadrianopolis, was fought between an Eastern Roman army led by the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens and Gothic rebels led by Fritigern. The battle took place about 13 km north of Adrianople in the Roman province of Thracia and it ended with an overwhelming victory for the Goths and the death of Emperor Valens. Part of the Gothic War, the battle is considered the start of the process which led to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century. It was fought by the forces of the Eastern Roman Empire and we have a detailed account for the lead up to the battle from the Roman perspective from Ammianus Marcellinus, which forms the culminating point at the end of his history. The position in his histories and the lack of a history for the following century has tended to exaggerate the significance of the battle for later historians. Ammianuss account of the battle itself, as to be expected from a side, is far from clear. Heat, fire and dust seem to have particularly significant. Much of what follows about the battle itself is modern supposition, in 376 AD, displaced by the invasions of the Huns, the Goths, led by Alavivus and Fritigern, asked to be allowed to settle in the Eastern Roman Empire. Hoping that they would become farmers and soldiers, the Eastern Roman emperor Valens allowed them to themselves in the Empire as allies. However, once across the Danube, the dishonesty of the provincial commanders Lupicinus and Maximus led the newcomers to revolt after suffering many hardships, Valens then asked Gratian, the western emperor, for reinforcements to fight the Goths. Gratian sent the general Frigeridus with reinforcements, as well as the leader of his guards, for the next two years preceding the battle of Adrianople there were a series of running battles with no clear victories for either side. In 378, Valens decided to control himself. Valens would bring troops from Syria and Gratian would bring more troops from Gaul. Valens left Antioch for Constantinople, and arrived on the 30th of May and he appointed Sebastianus, newly arrived from Italy, to reorganize the Roman armies already in Thrace. Sebastianus picked 2,000 of his legionaries and marched towards Adrianople and they ambushed some small Gothic detachments. Fritigern assembled the Gothic forces at Nicopolis and Beroe to deal with this Roman threat, Gratian had sent much of his army to Pannonia when the Lentienses attacked across the Rhine. Gratian recalled his army and defeated the Lentienses near Argentaria After this campaign, Gratian, with part of his army, went east by boat. The former group arrived at Sirmium in Pannonia and at the Camp of Mars,400 kilometers from Adrianople, Gratians group withdrew to Pannonia shortly thereafter

13.
Battle of the Catalaunian Plains
–
It was one of the last major military operations of the Western Roman Empire, although Germanic foederati composed the majority of the coalition army. Whether the battle was strategically conclusive is disputed, The Romans stopped the Huns attempt to establish vassals in Roman Gaul, however, the Huns successfully looted and pillaged much of Gaul and crippled the military capacity of the Romans and Visigoths. The Hunnic Empire was later dismantled by a coalition of their Germanic vassals at the Battle of Nedao in 454, by 450 AD Roman authority over Gaul had been restored in much of the province, although control over all of the provinces beyond Italy was continuing to diminish. Armorica was only part of the empire, and Germanic tribes occupying Roman territory had been forcibly settled. Northern Gaul between the Rhine north of Xanten and the Leie river had unofficially been abandoned to the Salian Franks, the Visigoths on the River Garonne were growing restive, but still holding to their treaty. The Burgundians in Sapaudia were more submissive, but likewise awaiting an opening for revolt, the Alans on the Loire and in Valentinois were more loyal, having served the Romans since the defeat of Jovinus in 411 and the siege of Bazas in 414. The historian Jordanes states that Attila was enticed by the Vandal king Gaiseric to wage war on the Visigoths, at the same time, Gaiseric would attempt to sow strife between the Visigoths and the Western Roman Empire. However, Jordanes account of Gothic history is biased and unreliable. Other contemporary writers offer different motivations, Honoria, the sister of the emperor Valentinian III, had been betrothed to the former consul Herculanus the year before. In 450, she sent the eunuch Hyacinthus to the Hunnic king asking for Attilas help in escaping her confinement, allegedly Attila interpreted it as offering her hand in marriage, and he had claimed half of the empire as a dowry. He demanded Honoria to be delivered along with the dowry, Valentinian rejected these demands, and Attila used it as an excuse to launch a destructive campaign through Gaul. Hughes suggests otherwise, saying that the reality of this interpretation should be that Honoria was using Attilas status as honorary Magister Militum for political leverage, another possible explanation is that in 449, the King of the Franks, Chlodio, died. Aetius had adopted the son of the Franks to secure the Rhine Frontier. Bona and more recently Kim take this theory a step further, reasoning that it was the cause of the war. Bona argues that Childeric was a vassal of Attila, and he identifies the founders of the Merovingian dynasty as the two claimants to the Frankish throne, Attila crossed the Rhine early in 451 with his followers and a large number of allies, sacking Divodurum on April 7. Lupus, bishop of Troyes, is credited with saving his city by meeting Attila in person. Many other cities also claim to have been attacked in these accounts and this explanation would support the literary evidence claiming North Gaul was attacked, and the archaeological evidence showing major population centers were not sacked. Attilas army had reached Aurelianum before June, according to Jordanes, the Alan king Sangiban, whose Foederati realm included Aurelianum, had promised to open the city gates

14.
Tetrarchy
–
313, when internecine conflict eliminated most of the claimants to power, leaving Constantine in control of the western half of the empire, and Licinius in control of the eastern half. Although the term tetrarch was current in antiquity, it was never used of the college under Diocletian. Instead, the term was used to describe independent portions of a kingdom that were ruled under separate leaders, the tetrarchy of Judaea, established after the death of Herod the Great, is the most famous example of the antique tetrarchy. The term was understood in the Latin world as well, where Pliny the Elder glossed it as follows, each is the equivalent of a kingdom, and also part of one. As used by the ancients, the term not only different governments. Only Lactantius, a contemporary of Diocletian and an ideological opponent of the Diocletianic state. Much modern scholarship was written without the term, although Edward Gibbon pioneered the description of the Diocletianic government as a New Empire, he never used the term tetrarchy, neither did Theodor Mommsen. It did not appear in the literature until used in 1887 by schoolmaster Hermann Schiller in a handbook on the Roman Empire, to wit. Even so, the term did not catch on in the literature until Otto Seeck used it in 1897. The first phase, sometimes referred to as the Diarchy, involved the designation of the general Maximian as co-emperor—firstly as Caesar in 285, Diocletian took care of matters in the eastern regions of the empire while Maximian similarly took charge of the western regions. In 305, the senior emperors jointly abdicated and retired, allowing Constantius and Galerius to be elevated in rank to Augustus. They in turn appointed two new Caesars — Severus II in the west under Constantius, and Maximinus in the east under Galerius — thereby creating the second Tetrarchy and these centres are known as the tetrarchic capitals. Sirmium was the capital of Galerius, the eastern Caesar, this was to become the Balkans-Danube prefecture Illyricum, mediolanum was the capital of Maximian, the western Augustus, his domain became Italia et Africa, with only a short exterior border. Augusta Treverorum was the capital of Constantius Chlorus, the western Caesar, near the strategic Rhine border and this quarter became the prefecture Galliae. Aquileia, a port on the Adriatic coast, and Eboracum, were significant centres for Maximian. In terms of jurisdiction there was no precise division between the four tetrarchs, and this period did not see the Roman state actually split up into four distinct sub-empires. Each emperor had his zone of influence within the Roman Empire, for a listing of the provinces, now known as eparchy, within each quarter, see Roman province. In the West, the Augustus Maximian controlled the provinces west of the Adriatic Sea and the Syrtis, in the East, the arrangements between the Augustus Diocletian and his Caesar, Galerius, were much more flexible

15.
Porphyry (geology)
–
Porphyry is a textural term for an igneous rock consisting of large-grained crystals such as feldspar or quartz dispersed in a fine-grained silicate rich, generally aphanitic matrix or groundmass. The larger crystals are called phenocrysts, in its non-geologic, traditional use, the term porphyry refers to the purple-red form of this stone, valued for its appearance. The term porphyry is from Ancient Greek and means purple, purple was the color of royalty, and the imperial porphyry was a deep purple igneous rock with large crystals of plagioclase. Some authors claimed the rock was the hardest known in antiquity, Imperial grade porphyry was thus prized for monuments and building projects in Imperial Rome and later. Subsequently, the name was given to any igneous rocks with large crystals, the adjective porphyritic now refers to a certain texture of igneous rock regardless of its chemical and mineralogical composition. Its chief characteristic is a difference in size between the tiny matrix crystals and the much larger phenocrysts. Porphyries may be aphanites or phanerites, that is, the groundmass may have invisibly small crystals as in basalt, or crystals easily distinguishable with the eye, most types of igneous rocks display some degree of porphyritic texture. Porphyry deposits are formed when a column of rising magma is cooled in two stages, in the first, the magma is cooled slowly deep in the crust, creating the large crystal grains with a diameter of 2 mm or more. In the second and final stage, the magma is cooled rapidly at relatively shallow depth or as it erupts from a volcano, the term porphyry is also used for a mineral deposit called a copper porphyry. The different stages of cooling that create porphyritic textures in intrusive and this enrichment occurs in the porphyry itself, or in other related igneous rocks or surrounding country rocks, especially carbonate rock. Collectively, these type of deposits are known as porphyry copper deposits, rhomb porphyry is a volcanic rock with gray-white large porphyritic rhomb- shaped phenocrysts embedded in a very fine-grained red-brown matrix. The composition of rhomb porphyry places it in the classification of the QAPF diagram. Rhomb porphyry lavas are known from three rift areas, the East African Rift, Mount Erebus near the Ross Sea in Antarctica. Plinys Natural History affirmed that the Imperial Porphyry had been discovered at a site in Egypt in AD18. This particular Imperial grade of porphyry came from a quarry in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. After the fourth century the quarry was lost to sight for many centuries, as early as 1850 BC on Crete in Minoan Knossos there were large column bases made of porphyry. Porphyry was also used for the blocks of the Column of Constantine in Istanbul, list of rock textures Quartz-porphyry Sarcophagi of Helena and Constantina Tyrian purple Pictures of the Mons Porphyrites, Red Sea, Egypt. Rhomb porphyry lavas at the Wayback Machine Flash showing rhomb porphyry formation at the Wayback Machine

16.
Venice
–
Venice is a city in northeastern Italy and the capital of the Veneto region. It is situated across a group of 118 small islands that are separated by canals and these are located in the shallow Venetian Lagoon, an enclosed bay that lies between the mouths of the Po and the Piave Rivers. Parts of Venice are renowned for the beauty of their settings, their architecture, the lagoon and a part of the city are listed as a World Heritage Site. In 2014,264,579 people resided in Comune di Venezia, together with Padua and Treviso, the city is included in the Padua-Treviso-Venice Metropolitan Area, with a total population of 2.6 million. PATREVE is a metropolitan area without any degree of autonomy. The name is derived from the ancient Veneti people who inhabited the region by the 10th century BC, the city was historically the capital of the Republic of Venice. Venice has been known as the La Dominante, Serenissima, Queen of the Adriatic, City of Water, City of Masks, City of Bridges, The Floating City, and City of Canals. The City State of Venice is considered to have been the first real international financial center which gradually emerged from the 9th century to its peak in the 14th century and this made Venice a wealthy city throughout most of its history. It is also known for its several important artistic movements, especially the Renaissance period, Venice has played an important role in the history of symphonic and operatic music, and it is the birthplace of Antonio Vivaldi. Venice has been ranked the most beautiful city in the world as of 2016, the name Venetia, however, derives from the Roman name for the people known as the Veneti, and called by the Greeks Eneti. The meaning of the word is uncertain, although there are other Indo-European tribes with similar-sounding names, such as the Celtic Veneti, Baltic Veneti, and the Slavic Wends. Linguists suggest that the name is based on an Indo-European root *wen, so that *wenetoi would mean beloved, lovable, a connection with the Latin word venetus, meaning the color sea-blue, is also possible. The alternative obsolete form is Vinegia, some late Roman sources reveal the existence of fishermen on the islands in the original marshy lagoons. They were referred to as incolae lacunae, the traditional founding is identified with the dedication of the first church, that of San Giacomo on the islet of Rialto — said to have taken place at the stroke of noon on 25 March 421. Beginning as early as AD166 to 168, the Quadi and Marcomanni destroyed the center in the area. The Roman defences were again overthrown in the early 5th century by the Visigoths and, some 50 years later, New ports were built, including those at Malamocco and Torcello in the Venetian lagoon. The tribuni maiores, the earliest central standing governing committee of the islands in the Lagoon, the traditional first doge of Venice, Paolo Lucio Anafesto, was actually Exarch Paul, and his successor, Marcello Tegalliano, was Pauls magister militum. In 726 the soldiers and citizens of the Exarchate rose in a rebellion over the controversy at the urging of Pope Gregory II

17.
St Mark's Basilica
–
The Patriarchal Cathedral Basilica of Saint Mark, commonly known as Saint Marks Basilica, is the cathedral church of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Venice, northern Italy. It is the most famous of the churches and one of the best known examples of Italo-Byzantine architecture. It lies at the end of the Piazza San Marco, adjacent. For its opulent design, gold mosaics, and its status as a symbol of Venetian wealth and power. The church was burned in a rebellion in 976, when the populace locked Pietro IV Candiano inside to kill him, nothing certain is known of the form of these early churches. From perhaps 1063 the present basilica was constructed, the consecration is variously recorded as being in 1084-5,1093,1102 and 1117, probably reflecting a series of consecrations of different parts. In 1094 the supposed body of Saint Mark was rediscovered in a pillar by Vitale Faliero, the building also incorporates a low tower, believed by some to have been part of the original Doges Palace. The Pala dOro ordered from Constantinople was installed on the altar in 1105. The main features of the present structure were all in place by then, except for the narthex or porch, and the facade. — The basic structure of the building has not been much altered. Its decoration has changed greatly over time, though the impression of the interior with a dazzling display of gold ground mosaics on all ceilings. Gradually, the exterior brickwork became covered with marble cladding and carvings, some older than the building itself. The latest structural additions include the closing-off of the Baptistery and St Isidors Chapel, the carvings on the facade and the Sacristy. During the 13th century the emphasis of the churchs function seems to have changed from being the chapel of the Doge to that of a state church. The transfer of the see was ordered by Napoleon during his period of control of Venice, before this, Venices cathedral from 1451 was the much less grand San Pietro di Castello. The procurators, an important organ of the Republic of Venice, were in charge of administration, their seats were the Procuratie, all building and restoring works were directed by the protos, great architects such as Jacopo Sansovino and Baldassarre Longhena held the office. The doge himself appointed a group of clergy led by the primicerio. Procurators and protos still exist and perform the tasks for the Patriarchate. The exterior of the west facade of the basilica is divided in three registers, lower, upper, and domes, in the lower register of the façade, five round-arched portals, enveloped by polychrome marble columns, open into the narthex through bronze-fashioned doors

18.
Diocletian
–
Diocletian, born Diocles, was a Roman emperor from 284 to 305. Born to a family of low status in the Roman province of Dalmatia, after the deaths of Carus and his son Numerian on campaign in Persia, Diocletian was proclaimed emperor. The title was claimed by Carus other surviving son, Carinus. Diocletians reign stabilized the empire and marks the end of the Crisis of the Third Century and he appointed fellow officer Maximian as Augustus, co-emperor, in 286. Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as Caesars, under this tetrarchy, or rule of four, each emperor would rule over a quarter-division of the empire. Diocletian secured the borders and purged it of all threats to his power. He defeated the Sarmatians and Carpi during several campaigns between 285 and 299, the Alamanni in 288, and usurpers in Egypt between 297 and 298, Galerius, aided by Diocletian, campaigned successfully against Sassanid Persia, the empires traditional enemy. In 299 he sacked their capital, Ctesiphon, Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favorable peace. He established new centres in Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Antioch. Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, he styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the masses with imposing forms of court ceremonies. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction increased the states expenditures. From at least 297 on, imperial taxation was standardized, made more equitable, not all of Diocletians plans were successful, the Edict on Maximum Prices, his attempt to curb inflation via price controls, was counterproductive and quickly ignored. Weakened by illness, Diocletian left the office on 1 May 305. He lived out his retirement in his palace on the Dalmatian coast and his palace eventually became the core of the modern-day city of Split in Croatia. Diocletian was born near Salona in Dalmatia, some time around 244 and his parents gave him the Greek name Diocles, or possibly Diocles Valerius. The modern historian Timothy Barnes takes his official birthday,22 December, other historians are not so certain. Diocles parents were of low status, and writers critical of him claimed that his father was a scribe or a freedman of the senator Anullinus, the first forty years of his life are mostly obscure. The Byzantine chronicler Joannes Zonaras states that he was Dux Moesiae, the often-unreliable Historia Augusta states that he served in Gaul, but this account is not corroborated by other sources and is ignored by modern historians of the period

19.
Maximian
–
Maximian was Roman Emperor from 286 to 305. He was Caesar from 285 to 286, then Augustus from 286 to 305 and he shared the latter title with his co-emperor and superior, Diocletian, whose political brain complemented Maximians military brawn. Maximian established his residence at Trier but spent most of his time on campaign, in the late summer of 285, he suppressed rebels in Gaul known as the Bagaudae. From 285 to 288, he fought against Germanic tribes along the Rhine frontier, together with Diocletian, he launched a scorched earth campaign deep into Alamannic territory in 288, temporarily relieving the Rhine provinces from the threat of Germanic invasion. The man he appointed to police the Channel shores, Carausius, rebelled in 286, causing the secession of Britain, Maximian failed to oust Carausius, and his invasion fleet was destroyed by storms in 289 or 290. Maximians subordinate, Constantius, campaigned against Carausius successor, Allectus, the rebel leader was ousted in 296, and Maximian moved south to combat piracy near Hispania and Berber incursions in Mauretania. When these campaigns concluded in 298, he departed for Italy, at Diocletians behest, Maximian abdicated on May 1,305, gave the Augustan office to Constantius, and retired to southern Italy. In late 306, Maximian took the title of Augustus again, in April 307, he attempted to depose his son, but failed and fled to the court of Constantius successor, Constantine, in Trier. At the Council of Carnuntum in November 308, Diocletian and his successor, Galerius, in early 310, Maximian attempted to seize Constantines title while the emperor was on campaign on the Rhine. Few supported him, and he was captured by Constantine in Marseille, Maximian committed suicide in the summer of 310 on Constantines orders. During Constantines war with Maxentius, Maximians image was purged from all public places, however, after Constantine ousted and killed Maxentius, Maximians image was rehabilitated, and he was deified. Maximian was born near Sirmium in the province of Pannonia, around 250 into a family of shopkeepers, beyond that, the ancient sources contain vague allusions to Illyricum as his homeland, to his Pannonian virtues, and to his harsh upbringing along the war-torn Danube frontier. Maximian joined the army, serving with Diocletian under the emperors Aurelian and he probably participated in the Mesopotamian campaign of Carus in 283 and attended Diocletians election as emperor on November 20,284 at Nicomedia. With his great energy, firm aggressive character and disinclination to rebel, the fourth-century historian Aurelius Victor described Maximian as a colleague trustworthy in friendship, if somewhat boorish, and of great military talents. Despite his other qualities, Maximian was uneducated and preferred action to thought, the panegyric of 289, after comparing his actions to Scipio Africanus victories over Hannibal during the Second Punic War, suggested that Maximian had never heard of them. His ambitions were military, he left politics to Diocletian. Maximian had two children with his Syrian wife, Eutropia, Maxentius and Fausta, there is no direct evidence in the ancient sources for their birthdates. Modern estimates of Maxentius birth year have varied from c.277 to 287, barnes concludes that Theodora was born no later than c.275 to an unnamed earlier wife of Maximian, possibly one of Hannibalianus daughters

20.
Galerius
–
Galerius was Roman Emperor from 305 to 311. During his reign he campaigned, aided by Diocletian, against the Sassanid Empire and he also campaigned across the Danube against the Carpi, defeating them in 297 and 300. Although he was an opponent of Christianity, Galerius ended the Diocletianic Persecution when he issued an edict of toleration in 311. Galerius was born in Serdica, though modern scholars consider the strategic site where he later built his palace named after his mother – Felix Romuliana – his birth. His father was a Thracian and his mother Romula was a Dacian woman and he originally followed his fathers occupation, that of a herdsman, where he got his surname of Armentarius. After a few years campaigning against Sarmatians and Goths on the Danube, soon after his appointment, Galerius would be dispatched to Egypt to fight the rebellious cities Busiris and Coptos. In 294, Narseh, a son of Shapur I who had passed over for the Sassanid succession. Narseh probably moved to eliminate Bahram III, a man installed by a noble named Vahunam in the wake of Bahram IIs death in 293. In early 294, Narseh sent Diocletian the customary package of gifts and he sought to identify himself with the warlike reigns of Ardashir and Shapur, who had sacked Roman Antioch and captured Emperor Valerian. In 295 or 296, Narseh declared war on Rome and he appears to have first invaded western Armenia, retaking the lands delivered to Tiridates in the peace of 287. He would occupy the lands there until the following year, the late historian Ammianus Marcellinus is the only source detailing the initial invasion of Armenia. Narseh then moved south into Roman Mesopotamia, where he inflicted a defeat on Galerius, then commander of the Eastern forces. In Antioch, Diocletian forced Galerius to walk a mile in advance of his imperial cart while still clad in the robes of an emperor. The message conveyed was clear, the loss at Carrhae was not due to the failings of the soldiers, but due to the failings of their commander. It is also possible that Galerius position at the head of the caravan was merely the conventional organization of an imperial progression, Galerius had been reinforced, probably in the spring of 298, by a new contingent collected from the empires Danubian holdings. Narseh did not advance from Armenia and Mesopotamia, leaving Galerius to lead the offensive in 298 with an attack on northern Mesopotamia via Armenia, Diocletian may or may not have been present to assist the campaign. Narseh retreated to Armenia to fight Galerius force, to Narsehs disadvantage, the rugged Armenian terrain was favorable to Roman infantry, local aid gave Galerius the advantage of surprise over the Persian forces, and, in two successive battles, Galerius secured victories over Narseh. During the second encounter, the Battle of Satala in 298, Roman forces seized Narsehs camp, his treasury, his harem, and his wife

21.
Constantius Chlorus
–
Constantius I was Roman Emperor from 293 to 306, commonly known as Constantius Chlorus. He was the father of Constantine the Great and founder of the Constantinian dynasty, as Caesar, he defeated the usurper Allectus in Britain and campaigned extensively along the Rhine frontier, defeating the Alamanni and Franks. Upon becoming Augustus in 305, Constantius launched a punitive campaign against the Picts beyond the Antonine Wall. However, Constantius died suddenly in Eboracum the following year and his death sparked the collapse of the tetrarchic system of government inaugurated by the Emperor Diocletian. Constantius was a member of the Protectores Augusti Nostri under the emperor Aurelian, by 288, his period as governor now over, Constantius had been made Praetorian Prefect in the west under Maximian. To strengthen the ties between the emperor and his powerful military servant, in 289 Constantius divorced his wife Helena, and married the emperor Maximian’s daughter, Theodora. By 293, Diocletian, conscious of the ambitions of his co-emperor for his new son-in-law, Diocletian divided the administration of the Roman Empire into two halves, a Western and an Eastern portion. Each would be ruled by an Augustus, supported by a Caesar, both Caesars had the right of succession once the ruling Augustus died. At Milan on March 1,293, Constantius was formally appointed as Maximian’s Caesar and he adopted the names Flavius Valerius and was given command of Gaul, Britannia and possibly Hispania. Diocletian, the eastern Augustus, in order to keep the balance of power in the imperium elevated Galerius as his Caesar, Constantius was the more senior of the two Caesars, and on official documents he always took precedence, being mentioned before Galerius. Constantius’ capital was to be located at Augusta Treverorum, Constantius’ first task on becoming Caesar was to deal with the Roman usurper Carausius who had declared himself emperor in Britannia and northern Gaul in 286. In late 293, Constantius defeated the forces of Carausius in Gaul and this precipitated the assassination of Carausius by his rationalis Allectus, who assumed command of the British provinces until his death in 296. Constantius spent the two years neutralising the threat of the Franks who were the allies of Allectus, as northern Gaul remained under the control of the British usurper until at least 295. He also battled against the Alamanni, achieving victories at the mouth of the Rhine in 295. Administrative concerns meant he made at least one trip to Italy during this time as well, only when he felt ready did he assemble two invasion fleets with the intent of crossing the English Channel. The fleet under Asclepiodotus landed near the Isle of Wight, and his army encountered the forces of Allectus, resulting in the defeat, Constantius in the meantime occupied London, saving the city from an attack by Frankish mercenaries who were now roaming the province without a paymaster. The result was the division of Upper Britannia into Maxima Caesariensis and Britannia Prima, while Flavia Caesariensis and he also restored Hadrian’s Wall and its forts. Later in 298, Constantius fought in the Battle of Lingones against the Alamanni and he was shut up in the city, but was relieved by his army after six hours and defeated the enemy

22.
Roman army
–
The Early Roman army of the Roman Kingdom and of the early Republic. During this period, when warfare chiefly consisted of small-scale plundering raids, it has suggested that the Roman Army followed Etruscan or Greek models of organisation. The early Roman army was based on an annual levy, the infantry ranks were filled with the lower classes while the cavalry were left to the patricians, because the wealthier could afford horses. Moreover, the authority during the regal period was the high king. Until the establishment of the Republic and the office of consul, however, from about 508 BC Rome no longer had a king. The commanding position of the army was given to the consuls, the term legion is derived from the Latin word legio, which ultimately means draft or levy. At first there were only four legions and these legions were numbered I to IIII, with the fourth being written as such and not IV. The first legion was seen as the most prestigious, the latter being a recurring theme in many elements of the Roman army. The bulk of the army was made up of citizens and these citizens could not choose the legion to which they were allocated. Any man from ages 16-46 were selected by ballot and assigned to a legion, until the Roman military disaster of 390 BC at the Battle of the Allia, Romes army was organised similarly to the Greek Phalanx. This was due to Greek influence in Italy by way of their colonies, patricia Southern quotes ancient historians Livy and Dionysius in saying that the phalanx consisted of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. Each man had to provide his equipment in battle, the equipment which he could afford determined which position he took in the battle. Politically they shared the ranking system in the Comitia Centuriata. The Roman army of the mid-Republic was also known as the army or the Polybian army after the Greek historian Polybius. The latter were required to roughly the same number of troops to joint forces as the Romans to serve under Roman command. Legions in this phase were always accompanied on campaign by the number of allied alae. After the 2nd Punic War, the Romans acquired an overseas empire and these volunteers were mainly from the poorest social class, who did not have plots to tend at home and were attracted by the modest military pay and the prospect of a share of war booty. The minimum property requirement for service in the legions, which had been suspended during the 2nd Punic War, was effectively ignored from 201 BC onward in order to recruit sufficient volunteers

23.
Romulus Augustulus
–
Romulus Augustus was a Roman emperor and alleged usurper who ruled the Western Roman Empire from 31 October AD475 until 4 September AD476. His deposition by Odoacer traditionally marks the end of the Roman Empire in the West, the fall of ancient Rome, and he is mostly known by his nickname Romulus Augustulus, though he ruled officially as Romulus Augustus. The Latin suffix -ulus is a diminutive, hence, Augustulus effectively means Little Augustus, the historical record contains few details of Romuluss life. He was proclaimed as emperor by his father Orestes, the magister militum of the Roman army after forcing Emperor Julius Nepos to leave Italy, Romulus, little more than a child, acted as a figurehead for his fathers rule and reigned for only ten months. His legitimacy and authority were disputed beyond Italy and Romulus was soon deposed by Odoacer, Odoacer sent Romulus to live in the Castellum Lucullanum in Campania, after which he disappears from the historical record. Romulus father Orestes was a Roman citizen, originally from Pannonia, the future emperor was named Romulus after his maternal grandfather, a nobleman from Poetovio in Noricum. Many historians have noted the coincidence that the last western emperor bore the names of both Romulus, the founder and first king of Rome, and Augustus, the first emperor. Orestes was appointed Magister militum by Julius Nepos in 475, shortly after his appointment, Orestes launched a rebellion and captured Ravenna, the capital of the Western Roman Empire since 402, on 28 August 475. Nepos fled to Dalmatia, where his uncle had ruled a state in the 460s. Orestes, however, refused to become emperor, from some secret motive, instead, he installed his son on the throne on 31 October 475. The empire Augustus ruled was a shadow of its self and had shrunk significantly over the previous 80 years. Imperial authority had retreated to the Italian borders and parts of southern Gaul, Italia and Gallia Narbonensis, the Eastern Roman Empire treated its western counterpart as a client state. The Eastern Emperor Leo, who died in 474, had appointed the western emperors Anthemius and Julius Nepos, neither Zeno nor Basiliscus, the two generals fighting for the eastern throne at the time of Romulus accession, accepted him as ruler. As a proxy for his father, Romulus made no decisions and left no monuments, though coins bearing his name were minted in Rome, Milan, Ravenna, and Gaul. Several months after Orestes took power, a coalition of Heruli, Scirian, when Orestes refused, the tribes revolted under the leadership of the Scirian chieftain Odoacer. Orestes was captured near Piacenza on 28 August 476 and swiftly executed, Odoacer advanced on Ravenna, capturing the city and the young emperor. Romulus was compelled to abdicate the throne on 4 September 476 and this act has been cited as the end of the Western Roman Empire, although Romulus deposition did not cause any significant disruption at the time. Rome had already lost its hegemony over the provinces, Germans dominated the Roman army, Italy would suffer far greater devastation in the next century when Emperor Justinian I reconquered it

24.
Dominate
–
The Dominate or late Roman Empire was the despotic later phase of imperial government, following the earlier period known as the Principate, in the ancient Roman Empire. In form, the Dominate is considered to have been more authoritarian, less collegiate, the term Dominate is derived from the Latin dominus, which translates into English as lord or master. Augustus actively discouraged the practice, and Tiberius in particular is said to have reviled it as sycophancy, the Dominate system of government emerged as a response to the 50 years of chaos that is referred to as the Crisis of the Third Century. Further, not all the changes resulted in the Dominate were complete by the time of Diocletian’s abdication in AD305. Consequently, just as the Principate emerged over the period 31 BC through to 14 AD and these bureaucratic machines worked moderately well, and their success might have been extraordinary if the monarchs who directed them had always been men of superior ability. Blots of course and defects there were, especially in the fields of economy, the political creation of the Illyrian Emperors was not unworthy of the genius of Rome. Under the Principate, the position of emperor saw the concentration of various civil and this role was almost always filled by a single individual, and the date that the Potestas tribunicia was conferred onto that person was the point when imperial authority could be exercised. Over the course of the Principate, it common for the emperor to nominate an heir. Further, it was their absence which caused usurpations to occur in response to a local or provincial crisis that traditionally would have dealt with by the emperor. Under the Dominate, the burden of the position was increasingly shared between colleagues, referred to as the Consortium imperii. This original power sharing model lasted from AD289 through to AD324, with Constantine I’s death in AD337, the empire was again shared between multiple augusti, lasting until AD350. The model became a permanent feature of the empire in AD364 with the accession of Valentinian I, barring the 3-year period of solitary rule by Theodosius I from AD 392–395, this approach would last until the overthrow of the last western emperor in AD476. While each augustus was autonomous within each portion of the empire they managed, during the Roman Republic, the office of Consul was the highest elected magistry in the Roman state, with two consuls elected annually. It was a post that would be occupied by a man halfway through his career, in his early thirties for a patrician, if they were especially skilled or valued, they may even have achieved a second consulate. Prior to achieving the consulate, these already had a significant career behind them. This had the effect of seeing a suffect consulship granted at an age, to the point that by the 4th century, it was being held by men in their early twenties. As time progressed, second consulates, usually ordinary, became far more common than had been the case during the first two centuries, while the first consulship was usually a suffect consulate, II when they were later granted an ordinary consulship by the emperor. One of the key changes in the management of the empire during the Dominate was the large scale removal of old-style senatorial participation in administrative, the process began with the reforms of Gallienus, who removed senators from military commands, placing them in the hands of the Equites

25.
Byzantine Empire
–
It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, several signal events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empires Greek East and Latin West divided. Constantine I reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the new capital, under Theodosius I, Christianity became the Empires official state religion and other religious practices were proscribed. Finally, under the reign of Heraclius, the Empires military, the borders of the Empire evolved significantly over its existence, as it went through several cycles of decline and recovery. During the reign of Maurice, the Empires eastern frontier was expanded, in a matter of years the Empire lost its richest provinces, Egypt and Syria, to the Arabs. This battle opened the way for the Turks to settle in Anatolia, the Empire recovered again during the Komnenian restoration, such that by the 12th century Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest European city. Despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople in 1261, the Byzantine Empire remained only one of several small states in the area for the final two centuries of its existence. Its remaining territories were annexed by the Ottomans over the 15th century. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 finally ended the Byzantine Empire, the term comes from Byzantium, the name of the city of Constantinople before it became Constantines capital. This older name of the city would rarely be used from this point onward except in historical or poetic contexts. The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre, and in 1680 of Du Canges Historia Byzantina further popularised the use of Byzantine among French authors, however, it was not until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in the Western world. The Byzantine Empire was known to its inhabitants as the Roman Empire, the Empire of the Romans, Romania, the Roman Republic, Graikia, and also as Rhōmais. The inhabitants called themselves Romaioi and Graikoi, and even as late as the 19th century Greeks typically referred to modern Greek as Romaika and Graikika. The authority of the Byzantine emperor as the legitimate Roman emperor was challenged by the coronation of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III in the year 800. No such distinction existed in the Islamic and Slavic worlds, where the Empire was more seen as the continuation of the Roman Empire. In the Islamic world, the Roman Empire was known primarily as Rûm, the Roman army succeeded in conquering many territories covering the entire Mediterranean region and coastal regions in southwestern Europe and north Africa. These territories were home to different cultural groups, both urban populations and rural populations. The West also suffered heavily from the instability of the 3rd century AD

26.
Byzantine army
–
The Byzantine army or Eastern Roman army was the primary military body of the Byzantine armed forces, serving alongside the Byzantine navy. A direct descendant of the Roman army, the Byzantine army maintained a level of discipline, strategic prowess. It was among the most effective armies of western Eurasia for much of the Middle Ages, over time the cavalry arm became more prominent in the Byzantine army as the legion system disappeared in the early 7th century. Since much of the Byzantine military focused on the strategy and skill of generals utilizing militia troops, heavy infantry were recruited from Frankish, restricted to a largely defensive role in the 7th to mid-9th centuries, the Byzantines developed the theme-system to counter the more powerful Caliphate. With one of the most powerful economies in the world at the time, after the collapse of the theme-system in the 11th century, the Byzantines grew increasingly reliant on professional Tagmata troops, including ever-increasing numbers of foreign mercenaries. The Komnenian emperors made great efforts to re-establish a native army, the Komnenian successes were undone by the subsequent Angeloi dynasty, leading to the dissolution of the Empire at the hands of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The Emperors of Nicaea managed to form a small but effective force using the structure of light and heavily armed troops. It proved effective in defending what remained of Byzantine Anatolia and reclaiming much of the Balkans, another period of neglect of the military followed in the reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos, which allowed Anatolia to fall prey to an emerging power, the Ottoman emirate. In the period after the Muslim conquests, which saw the loss of Syria and Egypt, despite this unprecedented disaster, the internal structures of the army remained much the same, and there is a remarkable continuity in tactics and doctrine between the 6th and 11th centuries. The Eastern Empire dates from the creation of the Tetrarchy by the Emperor Diocletian in 293 and his plans for succession did not outlive his lifetime, but his reorganization of the army did by centuries. Rather than maintain the traditional infantry-heavy legions, Diocletian reformed it into limitanei, there was an expansion of the importance of the cavalry, though the infantry still remained the major component of the Roman armies, in contrast to common belief. In preparation for Justinians African campaign of 533-534 AD, the army assembled amounted to 10,000 foot soldiers and 5,000 mounted archers, the limitanei and ripenses were to occupy the limes, the Roman border fortifications. The field units, by contrast, were to stay well behind the border and move quickly where they were needed, whether for offensive or defensive roles, the field units were held to high standards and took precedence over Limitanei in pay and provisions. Cavalry formed about one-third of the units, but as a result of smaller units, about half the cavalry consisted of heavy cavalry. They were armed with spear or lance and sword and armored in mail, some had bows, but they were meant for supporting the charge instead of independent skirmishing. In the field there was a component of some 15% of cataphractarii or clibanarii. The light cavalry featured high amongst the limitanei, being very useful troops on patrol, the infantry of the comitatenses was organized in regiments of about 500–1,200 men. They were still the heavy infantry of old, with a spear or sword, shield, body armour, but now each regiment was supported by a detachment of light infantry skirmishers

27.
Justinian I
–
Justinian I, traditionally known as Justinian the Great and also Saint Justinian the Great in the Eastern Orthodox Church, was a Byzantine emperor from 527 to 565. During his reign, Justinian sought to revive the empires greatness, because of his restoration activities, Justinian has sometimes been called the last Roman in modern historiography. This ambition was expressed by the recovery of the territories of the defunct western Roman Empire. His general, Belisarius, swiftly conquered the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, the prefect Liberius reclaimed the south of the Iberian peninsula, establishing the province of Spania. These campaigns re-established Roman control over the western Mediterranean, increasing the Empires annual revenue by over a million solidi, during his reign Justinian also subdued the Tzani, a people on the east coast of the Black Sea that had never been under Roman rule before. A still more resonant aspect of his legacy was the rewriting of Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis. His reign also marked a blossoming of Byzantine culture, and his building program yielded such masterpieces as the church of Hagia Sophia, a devastating outbreak of bubonic plague in the early 540s marked the end of an age of splendour. Justinian was born in Tauresium around 482, a native speaker of Latin, he came from a peasant family believed to have been of Illyro-Roman or Thraco-Roman origins. The cognomen Iustinianus, which he later, is indicative of adoption by his uncle Justin. During his reign, he founded Justiniana Prima not far from his birthplace and his mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin. Justin, who was in the guard before he became emperor, adopted Justinian, brought him to Constantinople. As a result, Justinian was well educated in jurisprudence, theology, Justinian served for some time with the Excubitors but the details of his early career are unknown. Chronicler John Malalas, who lived during the reign of Justinian, tells of his appearance that he was short, fair skinned, curly haired, round faced, another contemporary chronicler, Procopius, compares Justinians appearance to that of tyrannical Emperor Domitian, although this is probably slander. When Emperor Anastasius died in 518, Justin was proclaimed the new emperor, during Justins reign, Justinian was the emperors close confidant. As Justin became senile near the end of his reign, Justinian became the de facto ruler, Justinian was appointed consul in 521 and later commander of the army of the east. Upon Justins death on 1 August 527, Justinian became the sole sovereign, as a ruler, Justinian showed great energy. He was known as the emperor who never sleeps on account of his work habits, nevertheless, he seems to have been amiable and easy to approach. Around 525, he married his mistress, Theodora, in Constantinople and she was by profession a courtesan and some twenty years his junior

28.
Imperial Roman army
–
The Imperial Roman army is a term that may be applied to the terrestrial armed forces deployed by the Roman Empire from about 30 BC to 476 AD. This period is sometimes spilt into the Principate and Dominate periods, under Augustus, the army consisted of legions, eventually auxilia and also numeri. The auxilia provided virtually all the cavalry, light infantry, archers and other specialists. Numeri were allied native units from outside the Empire who fought alongside the forces on a mercenary basis. These were led by their own aristocrats and equipped in traditional fashion, numbers fluctuated according to circumstances and are largely unknown. As all-citizen formations, and symbolic protectors of the dominance of the Italian master-nation and this was reflected in better pay and benefits. In addition, legionaries were equipped with expensive and protective armour than auxiliaries, notably the lorica segmentata. However, in 212, the Emperor Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all the Empires freeborn inhabitants. At this point, the distinction between legions and auxilia became moot, the latter becoming all-citizen units also, the change was reflected in the disappearance, during the 3rd century, of legionaries special equipment, and the progressive break-up of legions into cohort-sized units like the auxilia. By the end of Augustus reign, the army numbered some 250,000 men. The numbers grew to a peak of about 450,000 by 211, in 33 legions, by then, auxiliaries outnumbered legionaries substantially. From this peak, numbers probably underwent a decline by 270 due to plague. Numbers were restored to their early 2nd-century level of c.400,000 under Diocletian. After the Empires borders became settled by AD68, virtually all units were stationed on or near the borders. The military chain of command was relatively flat, in each province, the deployed legions legati reported to the legatus Augusti pro praetore, who also headed the civil administration. The governor in turn reported directly to the Emperor in Rome, there was no general staff in Rome, but the leading praefectus praetorio often acted as the Emperors de facto military chief-of-staff. In addition, on completion of their term of service, they were given a discharge bonus equivalent to 13 years salary. Auxiliaries were paid less in the early 1st century, but by 100 AD

29.
Principate
–
This reflects the principate emperors assertion that they were merely first among equals among the citizens of Rome. The title itself derived from the position of the princeps senatus, although dynastic pretences crept in from the start, formalizing this in a monarchic style remained politically unthinkable. Afterwards, Imperial rule in the Empire is designated as the dominate, initially, the theory implied the first citizen had to earn his extraordinary position by merit in the style that Augustus himself had gained the position of auctoritas. Large distributions of food for the public and charitable institutions were also means that served as popularity boosters while the construction of public works provided employment for the poor. With the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the principate was redefined in formal terms under the Emperor Vespasian, the position of princeps became a distinct entity within the broader – formally still republican – Roman constitution. Under the Antonine dynasty, it was the norm for the Emperor to appoint a successful, in modern historical analysis, this is treated by many authors as an ideal situation, the individual who was most capable was promoted to the position of princeps. Of the Antonine dynasty, Edward Gibbon famously wrote that this was the happiest and most productive period in human history and this first phase was to be followed by, or rather evolved into, the so-called dominate. Richard Alston, Aspects of Roman History, henning Börm, Wolfgang Havener, Octavians Rechtsstellung im Januar 27 v. Chr. und das Problem der „Übertragung“ der res publica. Gedanken zur Periodisierung der römischen Kaiserzeit, kurt A. Raaflaub, Mark Toher, Between Republic and Empire, Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate. Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford 1990

30.
Conscription
–
Conscription, or drafting, is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service. Conscription dates back to antiquity and continues in countries to the present day under various names. The modern system of national conscription for young men dates to the French Revolution in the 1790s. Most European nations later copied the system in peacetime, so that men at a certain age would serve 1–8 years on active duty and those conscripted may evade service, sometimes by leaving the country. As of the early 21st century, many no longer conscript soldiers. The ability to rely on such an arrangement, however, presupposes some degree of predictability with regard to both war-fighting requirements and the scope of hostilities, many states that have abolished conscription therefore still reserve the power to resume it during wartime or times of crisis. Around the reign of Hammurabi, the Babylonian Empire used a system of conscription called Ilkum, under that system those eligible were required to serve in the royal army in time of war. During times of peace they were required to provide labour for other activities of the state. In return for service, people subject to it gained the right to hold land. It is possible that this right was not to hold land per se, various forms of avoiding military service are recorded. While it was outlawed by the Code of Hammurabi, the hiring of substitutes appears to have practiced both before and after the creation of the code. Later records show that Ilkum commitments could become regularly traded, in other places, people simply left their towns to avoid their Ilkum service. Another option was to sell Ilkum lands and the commitments along with them, with the exception of a few exempted classes, this was forbidden by the Code of Hammurabi. The levies raised in this way fought as infantry under local superiors, although the exact laws varied greatly depending on the country and the period, generally these levies were only obliged to fight for one to three months. Most were subsistence farmers, and it was in everyones interest to send the men home for harvest-time, the bulk of the Anglo-Saxon English army, called the fyrd, was composed of part-time English soldiers drawn from the landowning minor nobility. These thegns were the aristocracy of the time and were required to serve with their own armour. Medieval levy in Poland was known as the pospolite ruszenie, the system of military slaves was widely used in the Middle East, beginning with the creation of the corps of Turkish slave-soldiers by the Abbasid caliph al-Mutasim in the 820s and 830s. In the middle of the 14th century, Ottoman Sultan Murad I developed personal troops to be loyal to him, the new force was built by taking Christian children from newly conquered lands, especially from the far areas of his empire, in a system known as the devşirme

31.
Barbarian
–
A barbarian is a human who is perceived to be either uncivilized or primitive. Alternatively, they may instead be admired and romanticised as noble savages, in idiomatic or figurative usage, a barbarian may also be an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, warlike, insensitive person. The term originates from the Greek, βάρβαρος, in ancient times, the Greeks used it mostly for people of different cultures, but there are examples where one Greek city or state would use the word to attack another. In the early period and sometimes later, Greeks used it for the Turks. Comparable notions are found in non-European civilizations, notably China and Japan, during the Roman Empire, the Romans used the word barbarian for many people, such as the Germanics, Celts, Gauls, Iberians, Thracians, Parthians and Sarmatians. The Ancient Greek name βάρβαρος, barbarian, was an antonym for πολίτης, the earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek

32.
Constantinople
–
Constantinople was the capital city of the Roman/Byzantine Empire, and also of the brief Latin, and the later Ottoman empires. It was reinaugurated in 324 AD from ancient Byzantium as the new capital of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine the Great, after whom it was named, Constantinople was famed for its massive and complex defences. The first wall of the city was erected by Constantine I, Constantinople never truly recovered from the devastation of the Fourth Crusade and the decades of misrule by the Latins. The origins of the name of Byzantion, more known by the later Latin Byzantium, are not entirely clear. The founding myth of the city has it told that the settlement was named after the leader of the Megarian colonists, Byzas. The later Byzantines of Constantinople themselves would maintain that the city was named in honour of two men, Byzas and Antes, though this was likely just a play on the word Byzantion. During this time, the city was also called Second Rome, Eastern Rome, and Roma Constantinopolitana. As the city became the remaining capital of the Roman Empire after the fall of the West, and its wealth, population, and influence grew. In the language of other peoples, Constantinople was referred to just as reverently, the medieval Vikings, who had contacts with the empire through their expansion in eastern Europe used the Old Norse name Miklagarðr, and later Miklagard and Miklagarth. In Arabic, the city was sometimes called Rūmiyyat al-kubra and in Persian as Takht-e Rum, in East and South Slavic languages, including in medieval Russia, Constantinople was referred to as Tsargrad or Carigrad, City of the Caesar, from the Slavonic words tsar and grad. This was presumably a calque on a Greek phrase such as Βασιλέως Πόλις, the modern Turkish name for the city, İstanbul, derives from the Greek phrase eis tin polin, meaning into the city or to the city. In 1928, the Turkish alphabet was changed from Arabic script to Latin script, in time the city came to be known as Istanbul and its variations in most world languages. In Greece today, the city is still called Konstantinoúpolis/Konstantinoúpoli or simply just the City, apart from this, little is known about this initial settlement, except that it was abandoned by the time the Megarian colonists settled the site anew. A farsighted treaty with the emergent power of Rome in c.150 BC which stipulated tribute in exchange for independent status allowed it to enter Roman rule unscathed. The site lay astride the land route from Europe to Asia and the seaway from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and had in the Golden Horn an excellent and spacious harbour. He would later rebuild Byzantium towards the end of his reign, in which it would be briefly renamed Augusta Antonina, fortifying it with a new city wall in his name, Constantine had altogether more colourful plans. Rome was too far from the frontiers, and hence from the armies and the imperial courts, yet it had been the capital of the state for over a thousand years, and it might have seemed unthinkable to suggest that the capital be moved to a different location. Constantinople was built over 6 years, and consecrated on 11 May 330, Constantine divided the expanded city, like Rome, into 14 regions, and ornamented it with public works worthy of an imperial metropolis

33.
Milan
–
Milan is a city in Italy, capital of the Lombardy region, and the most populous metropolitan area and the second most populous comune in Italy. The population of the city proper is 1,351,000, Milan has a population of about 8,500,000 people. It is the industrial and financial centre of Italy and one of global significance. In terms of GDP, it has the largest economy among European non-capital cities, Milan is considered part of the Blue Banana and lies at the heart of one of the Four Motors for Europe. Milan is an Alpha leading global city, with strengths in the arts, commerce, design, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, services, research, and tourism. Its business district hosts Italys Stock Exchange and the headquarters of the largest national and international banks, the city is a major world fashion and design capital, well known for several international events and fairs, including Milan Fashion Week and the Milan Furniture Fair. The city hosts numerous cultural institutions, academies and universities, with 11% of the national total enrolled students, Milans museums, theatres and landmarks attract over 9 million visitors annually. Milan – after Naples – is the second Italian city with the highest number of accredited stars from the Michelin Guide, the city hosted the Universal Exposition in 1906 and 2015. Milan is home to two of Europes major football teams, A. C. Milan and F. C. Internazionale, the etymology of Milan is uncertain. One theory holds that the Latin name Mediolanum comes from the Latin words medio, however, some scholars believe lanum comes from the Celtic root lan, meaning an enclosure or demarcated territory in which Celtic communities used to build shrines. Hence, Mediolanum could signify the central town or sanctuary of a Celtic tribe, indeed, the name Mediolanum is borne by about sixty Gallo-Roman sites in France, e. g. Saintes and Évreux. Alciato credits Ambrose for his account, around 400 BC, the Celtic Insubres settled Milan and the surrounding region. In 222 BC, the Romans conquered the settlement, renaming it Mediolanum, Milan was eventually declared the capital of the Western Roman Empire by Emperor Diocletian in 286 AD. Diocletian chose to stay in the Eastern Roman Empire and his colleague Maximianus ruled the Western one, immediately Maximian built several monuments, such as a large circus 470 m ×85 m, the Thermae Herculeae, a large complex of imperial palaces and several other buildings. With the Edict of Milan of 313, Emperor Constantine I guaranteed freedom of religion for Christians, after the city was besieged by the Visigoths in 402, the imperial residence was moved to Ravenna. In 452, the Huns overran the city, in 539, the Ostrogoths conquered and destroyed Milan during the Gothic War against Byzantine Emperor Justinian I. In the summer of 569, a Teutonic tribe, the Lombards, conquered Milan, some Roman structures remained in use in Milan under Lombard rule. Milan surrendered to the Franks in 774 when Charlemagne took the title of King of the Lombards, the Iron Crown of Lombardy dates from this period

34.
Roman legion
–
A Roman legion was the largest unit of the Roman army involving from 3000 men in early times to over 5200 men in imperial times, consisting of centuries as the basic units. Until the middle of the first century,10 cohorts made up a Roman Legion and this was later changed to nine cohorts of standard size and one cohort, the first cohort, of double strength. In the early Roman Kingdom the legion may have meant the entire Roman army but sources on this period are few, Legions also included a small ala or cavalry unit. By the third century AD, the legion was a smaller unit of about 1,000 to 1,500 men. In the fourth century AD, East Roman border guard legions may have even smaller. The Roman army, for most of the Imperial period, consisted mostly of auxiliaries rather than legions, because legions were not permanent units until the Marian reforms, and were instead created, used, and disbanded again, several hundred legions were named and numbered throughout Roman history. To date, about 50 have been identified, toward the end of the 2nd Century BC, Rome started to experience manpower shortages brought about by property and financial qualifications to join the army. In the time of Augustus, there were nearly 50 upon his succession but this was reduced to about 25–35 permanent standing legions, a legion consisted of several cohorts of heavy infantry known as legionaries. The recruitment of non-citizens was rare but appears to have occurred in times of great need, For example, Caesar appears to have recruited the Legio V Alaudae mostly from non-citizen Gauls. In the period before the raising of the legio and the years of the Roman Kingdom. These centuries were grouped together as required and answered to the leader who had hired or raised them, the roles of century leader, second in command and standard bearer are referenced in this early period. Much Roman history of the era is shrouded in legend, but it is believed that during the reign of Servius Tullius, the census was introduced. Joining the army was both a duty and a mark of Roman citizenship, during the entire pre-Marian period the wealthiest land owners performed the most years of military service. These individuals would have had the most to lose should the state have fallen. The first and wealthiest common class was armed in the fashion of the hoplite with spear, sword, helmet, breast plate and round shield, there were 82 centuries of these, Roman soldiers had to purchase their own equipment. The second and third class also acted as spearmen but were heavily armoured and carried a larger oval or rectangular shield. The fourth class could afford no armour, perhaps bearing a shield and armed with spear. All three of the latter made up about 26 centuries

35.
Auxilia
–
The Auxilia constituted the standing non-citizen corps of the Imperial Roman army during the Principate era, alongside the citizen legions. By the 2nd century, the Auxilia contained the number of infantry as the legions and in addition provided almost all of the Roman armys cavalry. The auxilia thus represented three-fifths of Romes regular land forces at that time, like their legionary counterparts, auxiliary recruits were mostly volunteers, not conscripts. The Auxilia were mainly recruited from the peregrini, free provincial subjects who did not hold Roman citizenship and constituted the vast majority of the population in the 1st and 2nd centuries. In contrast to the legions, which only admitted Roman citizens, reliance on the various contingents of non-Italic troops, especially cavalry, increased when the Roman Republic employed them in increasing numbers to support its legions after 200 BC. The Julio-Claudian period saw the transformation of the Auxilia from motley levies to a corps with standardised structure, equipment. By the end of the period, there were no significant differences between legionaries and auxiliaries in terms of training, and thus, combat capability. Auxiliary regiments were stationed in provinces other than that in which they were originally raised, for reasons of security. The regimental names of many auxiliary units persisted into the 4th century, but by then the units in question were different in size, structure, despite its formidable strength, the legion had a number of deficiencies, especially a lack of cavalry. Around 200 BC, a legion of 4,200 infantry had an arm of only 300 horse. In addition the legion lacked missile forces such as slingers and archers, until 200 BC, the bulk of a Roman armys cavalry was provided by Romes regular Italian allies, commonly known as the Latin allies, which made up the Roman military confederation. This was Romes defence system until the Social War of 91–88 BC, the Italian forces were organised into alae. Since a pre-Social War consular army always contained a number of legions and alae. The overall cavalry element, c. 12% of the force, was greater than in most peninsular Italian forces. The Roman/Latin cavalry was sufficient while Rome was in conflict with other states in the mountainous Italian peninsula, which also disposed of limited cavalry resources. The decisive Roman victory at Zama in 202 BC, which ended the war, owed much to the Numidian cavalry provided by king Massinissa, from then, Roman armies were always accompanied by large numbers of non-Italian cavalry, Numidian light cavalry and, later, Gallic heavy cavalry. For example, Caesar relied heavily on Gallic and German cavalry for his Conquest of Gaul, as the role of native cavalry grew, that of Roman/Latin cavalry diminished. In the early 1st century BC, Roman cavalry was phased out altogether, after the Social War, the socii were all granted Roman citizenship, the Latin alae abolished, and the socii recruited into the legions

36.
Infantry
–
Infantry is the general branch of an army that engages in military combat on foot. As the troops who engage with the enemy in close-ranged combat, infantry units bear the largest brunt of warfare, Infantry can enter and maneuver in terrain that is inaccessible to military vehicles and employ crew-served infantry weapons that provide greater and more sustained firepower. In English, the 16th-century term Infantry describes soldiers who walk to the battlefield, and there engage, fight, the term arose in Sixteenth-Century Spain, which boasted one of the first professional standing armies seen in Europe since the days of Rome. It was common to appoint royal princes to military commands, and the men under them became known as Infanteria. in the Canadian Army, the role of the infantry is to close with, and destroy the enemy. In the U. S. Army, the closes with the enemy, by means of fire and maneuver, in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his assault by fire, close combat. In the U. S. Marine Corps, the role of the infantry is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy fire and maneuver. Beginning with the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century, artillery has become a dominant force on the battlefield. Since World War I, combat aircraft and armoured vehicles have become dominant. In 20th and 21st century warfare, infantry functions most effectively as part of a combined arms team including artillery, armour, Infantry relies on organized formations to be employed in battle. These have evolved over time, but remain a key element to effective infantry development and deployment, until the end of the 19th century, infantry units were for the most part employed in close formations up until contact with the enemy. This allowed commanders to control of the unit, especially while maneuvering. The development of guns and other weapons with increased firepower forced infantry units to disperse in order to make them less vulnerable to such weapons. This decentralization of command was made possible by improved communications equipment, among the various subtypes of infantry is Medium infantry. This refers to infantry which are heavily armed and armored than heavy infantry. In the early period, medium infantry were largely eliminated due to discontinued use of body armour up until the 20th century. In the United States Army, Stryker Infantry is considered Medium Infantry, since they are heavier than light infantry, Infantry doctrine is the concise expression of how infantry forces contribute to campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements. It is a guide to action, not a set of hard, doctrine provides a very common frame of reference across the military forces, allowing the infantry to function cooperatively in what are now called combined arms operations. Doctrine helps standardise operations, facilitating readiness by establishing common ways of accomplishing infantry tasks, doctrine links theory, history, experimentation, and practice

37.
Cavalry
–
Cavalry or horsemen were soldiers or warriors who fought mounted on horseback. Cavalry were historically the most mobile of the combat arms, an individual soldier in the cavalry is known by a number of designations such as cavalryman, horseman, dragoon or trooper. The designation of cavalry was not usually given to any military forces that used animals, such as camels. Cavalry had the advantage of improved mobility, and a man fighting from horseback also had the advantages of greater height, speed, another element of horse mounted warfare is the psychological impact a mounted soldier can inflict on an opponent. In Europe cavalry became increasingly armoured, and eventually became known for the mounted knights, in the period between the World Wars, many cavalry units were converted into motorized infantry and mechanized infantry units, or reformed as tank troops. Most cavalry units that are horse-mounted in modern armies serve in purely ceremonial roles, modern usage of the term generally refers to specialist units equipped with tanks or aircraft. The shock role, traditionally filled by heavy cavalry, is filled by units with the armored designation. Before the Iron Age, the role of cavalry on the battlefield was largely performed by light chariots, the chariot originated with the Sintashta-Petrovka culture in Central Asia and spread by nomadic or semi-nomadic Indo-Iranians. The power of mobility given by mounted units was recognized early on, Cavalry techniques were an innovation of equestrian nomads of the Central Asian and Iranian steppe and pastoralist tribes such as the Persian Parthians and Sarmatians. The photograph above left shows Assyrian cavalry from reliefs of 865–860 BC, at this time, the men had no spurs, saddles, saddle cloths, or stirrups. Fighting from the back of a horse was more difficult than mere riding. The cavalry acted in pairs, the reins of the archer were controlled by his neighbours hand. Even at this time, cavalry used swords, shields. The sculpture implies two types of cavalry, but this might be a simplification by the artist, Later images of Assyrian cavalry show saddle cloths as primitive saddles, allowing each archer to control his own horse. As early as 490 BC a breed of horses was bred in the Nisaean plain in Media to carry men with increasing amounts of armour. However, chariots remained in use for purposes such as carrying the victorious general in a Roman triumph. The southern Britons met Julius Caesar with chariots in 55 and 54 BC, the last mention of chariot use in battle was by the Caledonians at the Mons Graupius, in 84 AD. During the classical Greek period cavalry were usually limited to citizens who could afford expensive war-horses

38.
Roman cavalry
–
Roman cavalry refers to the horse mounted forces of the Roman army through the many centuries of its existence. Romulus supposedly established a cavalry regiment of 300 men called the Celeres to act as his personal escort and this cavalry regiment was supposedly doubled in size to 600 men by King Tarquinius Priscus. According to Livy, Servius Tullius also established a further 12 centuriae of cavalry, but this is unlikely, as it would have increased the cavalry to 1,800 horse, implausibly large compared to 8,400 infantry. This is confirmed by the fact that in the early Republic the cavalry fielded remained 600-strong, the royal cavalry may have been drawn exclusively from the ranks of the Patricians, the aristocracy of early Rome, which was purely hereditary, although some consider the supporting evidence tenuous. Since the cavalry was probably a patrician preserve, it follows that it played a critical part in the coup against the monarchy. Indeed, Alfoldi suggests that the coup was carried out by the Celeres themselves, however, the patrician monopoly on the cavalry seems to have ended by around 400 BC, when the 12 centuriae of equites additional to the original 6 of regal origin were probably formed. Most likely patrician numbers were no longer sufficient to supply the needs of the cavalry. It is widely agreed that the new centuriae were open to non-patricians, as their name implies, the equites were liable to cavalry service in the Polybian legion. It appears that equites equo privato were required to pay for their own equipment and horse, cavalrymen in service were paid a drachma per day, triple the infantry rate, and were liable to a maximum of ten campaigning seasons military service, compared to 16 for the infantry. Each Polybian legion contained a contingent of 300 horse, which does not appear to have been officered by an overall commander. The cavalry contingent was divided into 10 turmae of 30 men each, the squadron members would elect as their officers three decuriones, of whom the first to be chosen would act as the squadrons leader and the other two as his deputies. From the available evidence, the cavalry of a Polybian legion was armoured and specialised in the shock charge, pictorial evidence for the equipment of Republican cavalry is scant and leaves several uncertainties. The earliest extant representations of Roman cavalrymen are found on a few dated to the era of the Second Punic War. In one, the rider wears a variant of a Corinthian helmet and his body armour is obscured by his small round shield. It was probably a bronze breastplate, as a coin of 197 BC shows a Roman cavalryman in Hellenistic composite cuirass, but the Roman cavalry may already have adopted mail armour from the Celts, who are known to have been using it as early as ca.300 BC. However, a coin of 136 BC and the Lacus Curtius bas-relief of the period show horsemen in composite bronze cuirasses. There is similar uncertainty as to whether cavalryman carried shields and the question of whether they carried long lances or shorter spears. Most representations show cavalrymen with the small parma equestris type of shield, but the Ahenobarbus monument of 122 BC, but the evidence is too scant to draw any firm conclusions

39.
Cataphract
–
A cataphract was a form of armored heavy cavalry used in ancient warfare by a number of peoples in Western Eurasia and the Eurasian Steppe. The English word is derived from the Greek κατάφρακτος Kataphraktos, literally meaning armored or completely enclosed. Historically, the cataphract was a heavily armored horseman, with both the rider and steed draped from head to toe in scale armor, while typically wielding a kontos or lance as their weapon. Cataphracts served as either the elite cavalry or assault force for most empires and nations that fielded them, in several cases the term is used to denote a Parthian chariot. The adoption of cataphract-like cavalry formations took hold among the late Roman army during the late 3rd and 4th centuries. Kataphraktos is composed of the Greek root words, κατά, a preposition, and φρακτός, covered, protected, the term first appears substantively in Latin, in the writings of Sisennus. The armored, whom they call cataphract, vegetius, writing in the fourth century, described armor of any sort as cataphracts – which at the time of writing would have been either lorica segmentata or lorica hamata. Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman soldier and historian of the century, mentions the. However, it appears with more frequency in Latin sources than in Greek throughout antiquity, the Byzantine historian Leo Diaconis calls them πανσιδήρους ἱππότας pansidearoos ippotas, which would translate as fully iron-clad knights. There is, therefore, some doubt as to what exactly cataphracts were in late antiquity, cataphract-like cavalry under the command of the Western Roman Empire, where Latin was the official tongue, always bore the Latinized variant of the original Greek name, Cataphractarii. Contemporary sources, however, sometimes imply that clibanarii were in fact a type of cavalryman. Two of these tribes are attested based upon evidence, the Mitanni. The Near East is generally believed to have been the point for where this first occurred. The Nisean would become renowned in the Ancient World and particularly in Ancient Persia as the mount of nobility and these warhorses, sometimes referred to as Nisean chargers, were highly sought after by the Greeks, and are believed to have influenced many modern horse breeds. With the growing aggressiveness of cavalry in warfare, protection of the rider and this was especially true of peoples who treated cavalry as the basic arm of their military, such as the Ancient Persians, including the Medes and the successive Persian dynasties. Assyria and the Khwarezm region were also significant to the development of cavalry during the 1st millennium BC. The further evolution of early forms of heavy cavalry in Western Eurasia is not entirely clear. The Greeks first encountered cataphracts during the Greco-Persian Wars of the 5th century BC with the Achaemenid Empire, the cataphract was widely adopted by the Seleucid Empire, the Hellenistic successors of Alexander the Greats kingdom who reigned over conquered Persia and Asia Minor after his death in 323 BC

40.
Clibanarii
–
The Clibanarii or Klibanophoroi were a Sassanid Persian, late Roman and Byzantine military unit of heavy armored horsemen. Similar to the cataphracti, the horsemen themselves and their horses were fully armoured, the Clibanarii were used mostly by Eastern armies, for example, they were used by the Palmyrene Empire, and fought against the Roman cavalry at Immae and Emesa. Sassanids employed Clibanarii in their armies, mainly against the Eastern Roman empire. They were more heavily armoured than their Byzantine counterparts, of these some who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would have thought them held fast by clamps of bronze. Cataphract Heavy cavalry Notitia Dignitatum Hugh Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe Cataphracts and Siegecraft - Roman, Parthian and Sasanid military organisation

41.
Mounted archery
–
A horse archer is a cavalryman armed with a bow, able to shoot while riding from horseback. Archery has occasionally been used from the backs of other riding animals, in large open areas, it was a highly successful technique for hunting, for protecting the herds, and for war. By the expansion of peoples, the practice also spread to Eastern Europe, to Mesopotamia. In East Asia, horse archery came to be honoured in the samurai tradition of Japan. The term mounted archer occurs in medieval English sources to describe a type of troop who rode to battle and it is a useful term to distinguish this type of troop from horse archers proper who shot from the saddle. Horse archery developed separately among the peoples of the South American pampas and the North American prairies, since using a bow requires the rider to let go of the reins with both hands, horse archers need superb equestrian skills if they are to shoot on the move. The natives of large grassland areas used mounted archery for hunting, for protecting their herds, horse archery was for many groups a basic survival skill, and additionally made each able-bodied man, at need, a highly-mobile warrior. The buffalo hunts of the North American prairies may be the examples of bowhunting by mounted archers. In battle, light horse archers were typically skirmishers, lightly armed missile troops capable of moving swiftly to close combat or to deliver a rapid blow to the flanks or rear of the foe. Captain Robert G. Carter described the experience of facing Quanah Parkers forces, while advancing, to the right or left, and as rapidly concentrating. In the centre. and their back in the same manner. all was most puzzling to our. Due to the speed of mounted archers, troops under attack from horse archers were unable to respond to the threat if they did not have ranged weapons of their own. Constant harassment would result in casualties, morale drop and disruption of the formation, any attempts to charge the archers would also slow the entire army down. An example of these comes from an attack on Comanche horse archers by a group of Texas Rangers. Fifty Rangers armed with guns met about 20 Comanche hunters who were hunting buffalo, the Comanches fled, easily keeping clear of the Rangers, for several miles across the open prairie. They led the Rangers into a force of two hundred. The Rangers immediately retreated, only to discover they had committed an error in fighting mounted archers. The Rangers found a ravine where they could shoot at the Comanche from cover, the horse archers did not charge, but kept the Rangers under siege until seven of them were dead or dying, whereupon the Rangers retreated but claimed victory

42.
Defence-in-depth (Roman military)
–
Defence-in-depth is the term used by American political analyst Edward Luttwak to describe his theory of the defensive strategy employed by the Late Roman army in the third and fourth centuries AD. In contrast, defence-in-depth would not attempt to prevent incursions into Roman territory, scholarly opinion generally accepts forward-defence as a valid description of the Roman Empires defensive posture during the Principate. But many specialists in Roman military history contest that this changed to Luttwaks defence-in-depth from 284 onwards. Described as manifestly wrong by the expert on Roman borders, C. R, according to this view, the Imperial Roman army had relied on neutralizing imminent barbarian incursions before they reached the imperial borders. This was achieved by stationing units right on the border and establishing and garrisoning strategic salients beyond the borders, the first major challenge to forward defense was the great invasion of Germanic tribes across the Danube in 166-7, which began the Marcomannic Wars. The barbarians reached as far as Aquileia in northeastern Italy and were not finally expelled from the empire until 175, but the response of the imperial high command was not to change the forward defence strategy, but to reinforce it. Under this strategy, border forces would not attempt to repel a large incursion, instead, they would retreat into fortified strongholds and wait for mobile forces to arrive and intercept the invaders. At the same time, many small forts were established in the hinterland, especially along roads. Also, fortified granaries were built to store food safely and deny supplies to the invaders, the invading force would thus find itself in a region peppered with strongholds in enemy hands and where it could not easily get access to sufficient supplies. If the invaders ignored the strongholds and advanced, they risked sorties, if they attempted to besiege the strongholds, they would give the mobile troops valuable time to arrive. Overall, the aim of defence-in-depth was to provide a defence system at a sustainable cost. Luttwaks work has been praised for its analysis of, and insights into, issues regarding Roman military dispositions. But the validity of his thesis has been strongly disputed by a number of scholars. Isaac, the author of the study of the Roman army in the East. The objections fall under two headings, The Roman empire did not have the intelligence and planning capacity to sustain a grand strategy. Defence-in-depth is not, in the main, consistent with the literary, but Isaac demonstrates that these assumptions are probably false and result from inappropriate application of modern concepts of international relations and military strategy to the ancient world. Isaac suggests that the empire was fundamentally aggressive both in ideology and military posture, up to and including the fourth century and this was demonstrated by the continued military operations and siting of fortifications well beyond the imperial borders. Finally, the government probably was far less concerned with the security of its subjects than would be a modern government

43.
Notitia Dignitatum
–
The Notitia Dignitatum is a document of the late Roman Empire that details the administrative organization of the Eastern and Western Empires. It is unique as one of few surviving documents of Roman government and describes several thousand offices from the imperial court to provincial governments, diplomatic missions. It is usually considered to be accurate for the Western Roman Empire in the AD 420s, however, the text does not date its own authorship or accuracy, and omissions complicate ascertaining its date from its content. There are several extant 15th- and 16th-century copies of the document, the heraldry in illuminated manuscript copies of the Notitia is thought to copy or imitate only that illustrated in the lost Codex Spirensis. The iteration of 1542 made for Otto Henry, Elector Palatine, was revised with illustrations more faithful to the originals added at a later date, the most important copy of the Codex is that made for Pietro Donato in 1436 and illuminated by Peronet Lamy. The Notitia presents four primary problems as regards the study of the Empires military, therefore, its development from the structure of the Principate is largely conjectural because of the lack of other evidence. It was compiled at two different times, the section for the Eastern Empire apparently dates from circa AD395 and that for the Western Empire from circa AD420. Further, each section is not a contemporaneous snapshot. The Eastern section may contain data from as early as AD379, the Western section contains data from as early as circa AD400, for example, it shows units deployed in Britannia, which must date from before 410, when the Empire lost government of the island. In consequence, there is substantial duplication, with the unit often listed under different commands. It is impossible to ascertain whether these were detachments of the unit in different places simultaneously. Also, it is likely that some units were merely nominal or minimally staffed, the Notitia has many sections missing and lacunae within sections. This is doubtless due to accumulated textual losses and copying errors, because it was copied over the centuries. The Notitia cannot therefore provide a comprehensive list of all units that existed, the Notitia does not record the number of personnel. Given that and the paucity of evidence of unit sizes at that time, the size of individual units. In turn, this makes it impossible to assess accurately the total size of the army, for example, the forces deployed in Britain circa AD400 may have been merely 18,000 against circa 55,000 in the AD 2nd century. The Notitia contains symbols similar to the diagram which later came to be known as yin, the emblem of the Thebaei, another Western Roman infantry regiment, featured a pattern of concentric circles comparable to its static version. The Roman patterns predate the earliest Taoist versions by almost seven hundred years, laeti Tabula Peutingeriana List of Late Roman provinces Notitia Dignitatum, edited by Robert Ireland, in British Archaeological Reports, International Series 63.2

44.
Ammianus Marcellinus
–
Ammianus Marcellinus was a Roman soldier and historian who wrote the penultimate major historical account surviving from Antiquity. Ammianus was born between 325 and 330 in the Greek-speaking East, possibly in Syria or Phoenicia and his native language was most likely Greek, he learned Latin as a second language, and was probably familiar with Syriac as well. The surviving books of his cover the years 353 to 378. Ammianus served as a soldier in the army of Constantius II and Julian in Gaul and he professes to have been a former soldier and a Greek, and his enrollment among the elite protectores domestici shows that he was of middle class or higher birth. Consensus is that Ammianus probably came from a family. He entered the army at an age, when Constantius II was emperor of the East, and was sent to serve under Ursicinus, governor of Nisibis in Mesopotamia. He returned with Ursicinus to Italy when Ursicinus was recalled by Constantius to begin an expedition against Claudius Silvanus, Silvanus had been forced by the allegedly false accusations of his enemies into proclaiming himself emperor in Gaul. Ammianus campaigned in the East twice under Ursicinus, on one occasion he was separated from the officers entourage and took refuge in Amida during the siege of the city by the Sassanids of shah Shapur II, he reportedly barely escaped with his life. He accompanied Julian, for whom he expresses enthusiastic admiration, in his campaigns against the Alamanni, after Julians death, Ammianus accompanied retreat of the new emperor Jovian as far as Antioch. He was residing in Antioch in 372 when a certain Theodorus was thought to have identified the successor to the emperor Valens by divination. Speaking as an eyewitness, Marcellinus recounts how Theodorus and several others were made to confess their deceit through the use of torture. He eventually settled in Rome and began the Res Gestae, the precise year of his death is unknown, but scholarly consensus places it somewhere between 392 and 400 at the latest. Modern scholarship generally describes Ammianus as a pagan who was tolerant of Christianity and he was not blind to the faults of Christians or of pagans, he observed in his Res Gestae that no wild beasts are so deadly to humans as most Christians are to each other. And he condemns his hero Julian for excessive attachment to sacrifice and he presumably completed the work before 391, as at 22.16. The Res Gestae was originally composed of books, but the first thirteen have been lost. The surviving eighteen books cover the period from 353 to 378, as a whole it is extremely valuable, constituting the foundation of modern understanding of the history of the fourth century Roman Empire. Although criticised as lacking literary merit by his biographers, he was in fact quite skilled in rhetoric. His work has suffered terribly from manuscript transmission, aside from the loss of the first thirteen books, the remaining eighteen are in many places corrupt and lacunose

45.
Codex Theodosianus
–
The Codex Theodosianus was a compilation of the laws of the Roman Empire under the Christian emperors since 312. A commission was established by Theodosius II and his co-emperor Valentinian III on 26 March 429 and it went into force in the eastern and western parts of the empire on 1 January 439. Twenty-two scholars, working in two teams, worked for nine years starting in 429 to assemble what was to become the Theodosian Code, the chief overseer of the work was Antiochus Chuzon, a lawyer and a Prefect and Consul from Antioch. Their product was a collection of 16 books containing more than 2,500 constitutions issued between 313 and 437, the code covers political, socioeconomic, cultural and religious subjects of the 4th and 5th century in the Roman Empire. A collection of imperial enactments called the Codex Gregorianus had been written in c, 291-4 and the Codex Hermogenianus, a limited collection of rescripts from c. Theodosius desired to create a code that would provide greater insight into law during the later Empire. According to Peter Stein, Theodosius was perturbed at the low state of legal skill in his empire of the East and he apparently started a school of law at Constantinople. In 429 he assigned a commission to collect all imperial constitutions since the time of Constantine, the laws in the code span from 312-438, so by 438 the volume of imperial law had become unmanageable. During the process of gathering the vast amount of material, often editors would have multiple copies of the same law, in addition to this, the source material the editors were drawing upon changed over time. Clifford Ando notes that according to Matthews, the editors displayed a reliance on western provincial sources through the late 4th century and on central, others have put forth alternate theories to explain the lengthy editorial process and two different commissions. The tone of the reflected the rhetorical training that the drafters had received and Averil Cameron has described it as verbose, moralizing. The Code was written in Latin and referred explicitly to the two capitals of Constantinople and Rome and it was also concerned with the imposition of orthodoxy - the Arian controversy was ongoing - within the Christian religion and contains 65 decrees directed at heretics. Originally, Theodosius had attempted to commission leges generales beginning with Constantine to be used as a supplement for the Codex Gregorianus and he intended to supplement the legal codes with the opinions and writings of ancient Roman Jurists, much like the Digest found later in Justinians Code. But the task proved to be too great, and in 435 it was decided to concentrate solely on the laws from Constantine to the time of writing and this decision defined the greatest difference between the Theodosian Code and Justinians later Corpus Juris Civilis. John F. Justinian’s Code, published about 100 years later, lenski quotes Matthews as noting that the imperial constitutions represented not only prescriptive legal formulas but also descriptive pronouncements of an emperor’s moral and ideological principles. The Codex Theodosianus, is, for example, explicit in ordering that all actions at law should cease during Holy Week, books 1-5 lack the level of manuscript support available for books 6-16. The first five books of the surviving Codex draw largely from two other manuscripts, the Turin manuscript, also known as T, consists of 43, largely discontinuous folios. The second manuscript is the Breviary of Alaric, and a part of the Breviarium that is included in book 1 actually contains the original text of the respective part of the original codex

46.
Corpus Juris Civilis
–
This article is about the Roman law codification of Justinian I. For the canon law codification of a name, see Corpus Juris Canonici. The Corpus Juris Civilis is the name for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I. It is also referred to as the Code of Justinian. All three parts, even the textbook, were given force of law and they were intended to be, together, the sole source of law, reference to any other source, including the original texts from which the Code and the Digest had been taken, was forbidden. Nonetheless, Justinian found himself having to enact laws and today these are counted as a fourth part of the Corpus. The work was directed by Tribonian, an official in Justinians court and his team was authorized to edit what they included. How far they made amendments is not recorded and, in the main, by the early 7th century, the official government language had become Greek during the lengthy reign of Heraclius. How far the Corpus Juris Civilis or any of its parts was effective, however, it was not in general use during the Early Middle Ages. After the Early Middle Ages, interest in it revived and it was received or imitated as private law and its public law content was quarried for arguments by both secular and ecclesiastical authorities. This revived Roman law, in turn, became the foundation of law in all civil law jurisdictions. The provisions of the Corpus Juris Civilis also influenced the law of the Roman Catholic Church. The Corpus continues to have an influence on public international law. Its four parts thus constitute the foundation documents of the Western legal tradition, the Codex was the first part to be finished, on 7 April 529. It contained in Latin most of the existing imperial constitutiones, back to the time of Hadrian and these works had developed authoritative standing. This first edition is now lost, an edition was issued in 534 and is the text that has survived. At least the second edition contained some of Justinians own legislation and it is not known whether he intended there to be further editions, although he did envisage translation of Latin enactments into Greek. Laws against heresy The very first law in the Codex requires all persons under the jurisdiction of the Empire to hold the Christian faith and this was primarily aimed against heresies such as Nestorianism

47.
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
–
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, commonly referred to simply as Vegetius, was a writer of the Later Roman Empire. Nothing is known of his life or station beyond what he tells us in his two surviving works, Epitoma rei militaris, and the lesser-known Digesta Artis Mulomedicinae, a guide to veterinary medicine. This long held conclusion, that nothing is known nor ever will be, has recently been challenged, despite Eutropius location in Constantinople, the scholarly consensus is that Vegetius wrote in the Western Empire. Vegetius identifies himself in the opening of his work Epitoma rei militaris as a Christian, Vegetius epitome mainly focuses on military organization and how to react to certain occasions in war. As G. R. Watson observes, Vegetius Epitoma is the only ancient manual of Roman military institutions to have survived intact. Despite this, Watson doubts its value, for Vegetius was neither a historian nor a soldier, his work is a compilation carelessly constructed from material of all ages, a congeries of inconsistencies. These antiquarian sources, according to his own statement, were Cato the Elder, Cornelius Celsus, Frontinus, Paternus and the constitutions of Augustus, Trajan. The first book is a plea for reform, it vividly portrays the military decadence of the Late Roman Empire. Vegetius also describes in detail the training and equipment of the army of the early Empire. The third book contains a series of maxims, which were the foundation of military learning for every European commander from William the Silent to Frederick the Great. His book on siege-craft contains the best description of Late Empire, among other things, it shows details of the siege engine called the onager, which afterwards played a great part in sieges, until the development of modern cannonry. The fifth book gives an account of the materiel and personnel of the Roman navy, the author of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article states that In manuscript, Vegetius work had a great vogue from its first advent. Its rules of siegecraft were much studied in the Middle Ages, milner observes that it was one of the most popular Latin technical works from Antiquity, rivalling the elder Plinys Natural History in the number of surviving copies dating from before AD1300. It was translated into English, French, Italian, Catalan, Spanish, Czech, the first printed editions are ascribed to Utrecht, Cologne, Paris, Rome, and Pisa. A German translation by Ludwig Hohenwang appeared at Ulm in 1475, however, from that point Vegetius position as the premier military authority began to decline, as ancient historians such as Polybius became available. Stewechius opinion that the survival of Vegetius work led to the loss of his sources were more typical of the late Renaissance. While as late as the 18th century a soldier such as Marshal Puysegur based his own works on this model, in Milners words. Vegetius emphasizes the shortcomings of the Roman Army in his lifetime, to do this, he eulogises the army of the early Empire

The Auxilia (Latin, lit. "auxiliaries") constituted the standing non-citizen corps of the Imperial Roman army during …

Roman auxiliary infantry crossing a river, Danube, the emperor Trajan's Dacian Wars (AD 101–106). They can be distinguished by the oval shield (clipeus) they were equipped with, in contrast to the rectangular scutum carried by legionaries. Panel from Trajan's Column, Rome

A cataphract was a form of armored heavy cavalry used in ancient warfare by a number of peoples in Europe, East Asia, …

Relief Taq-e Bostan (Kermanshah Province in Iran) from the era of Sassanid Empire: One of the oldest depictions of a cataphract. The figure on top in the middle is believed to be Khosrau II. The figure to the right is Ahura Mazda, and to the left is the Persian Goddess Anahita. The cataphract is not known, although various theories exist on his identity, but he is certainly of royal nobility.

Three examples of the various styles of interweaving and wire threading that were commonly employed in the creation of cataphract scale armor to form a stiffened, "armored shell" with which to protect the horse.

Portrait of a barbarian. Mosaic fragment from the Great Palace at Constantinople. 6th century

Aerial view of Colonia Agrippina (Cologne, Germany) in the Roman era. Note (bottom right) the Constantinian fortress of Divitia (Deutz), on the opposite bank of the Rhine. Its main function was to guard the approach to the newly built bridge (310) and to act as a base protect fluvial traffic. Several such cross-river forts were built along the Rhine-Danube frontier in the late period. Cologne was sacked and occupied by the Franks in 353 and recaptured by Julian in 356

View of Saverne (town on right) from a foothill of the Vosges mountains. The hill contains the ruins of fortifications from various eras, including the medieval Chateau de Geroldseck (right). The town, known as Tres Tabernae ("Three Inns") to the Romans, lay astride the main Roman highway through the Vosges from Alsace into Gaul. Strasbourg lies some 30km off the right edge of the picture